Full Version: Ethics/Values in politics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
I suppose, that whenever a Repub is found guilty of some misdeed...the left will consider a proper punishment will be wearing panties on the head for a week or two.
how are people that commit treason normally punished?
QUOTE(Mizilus @ Oct 26 2005, 07:23 PM)
how are people that commit treason normally punished?
[right][snapback]142844[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]142844[/snapback][/right]
I dunno, panties?
I think they are hanged or face the firing squad.
To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution. Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. This safeguard may not be foolproof since Congress could pass a statute creating treason-like offences with different names (such as sedition, bearing arms against the state, etc.) which do not require the testimony of two witnesses, and have a much wider definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have generally been convicted of espionage rather than treason. In the United States Code the penalty ranges from "shall suffer death" to "shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
well, exposing a CIA WMD expert these days sure seems like treason to me. I think an example should be made of them. America should have started with ollie north and friends but can make up for that here.
QUOTE(Mizilus @ Oct 26 2005, 04:25 PM)
well, exposing a CIA WMD expert these days sure seems like treason to me. I think an example should be made of them. America should have started with ollie north and friends but can make up for that here.
[right][snapback]142871[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]142871[/snapback][/right]
Treason doesn't fit, but something else will.
daddy traitor himself called someone who did such a thing "the most insidious of traitors". Well thats the one thing agree with him on.
DeLay Acknowledges Failure to Report Money By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 15 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom DeLay has notified House officials that he failed to disclose all contributions to his legal defense fund as required by congressional rules.
The fund is currently paying DeLay's legal bills in a campaign finance investigation in Texas, where DeLay has been indicted, and in a federal investigation of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The lobbyist arranged foreign travel for DeLay and had his clients pay some of the cost.
DeLay, R-Texas, has denied wrongdoing in both cases.
DeLay wrote House officials that he started an audit and it found that $20,850 contributed in 2000 and 2001 to the defense fund was not reported anywhere.
An additional $17,300 was included in the defense fund's quarterly report but not in DeLay's 2000 annual financial disclosure report — a separate requirement. Other donations were understated as totaling $2,800 when the figure should have been $4,450.
House rules require quarterly reports of donations and expenditures by a lawmaker's legal defense fund. Donations exceeding $250 also must be disclosed on annual financial disclosure reports.
The Texas Republican, who has stepped down as majority leader due to felony indictments in the Texas probe, disclosed and corrected the past reporting mistakes.
The defense fund will report to the House in a few days that it received $318,000 in the third quarter of this year — the best fundraising quarter since it was started in June 2000, according to the trustee, Houston attorney Brent Perry.
On Oct. 13 DeLay wrote the clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, that the first inkling of inconsistencies in his disclosures came last February.
"I brought this matter — which I discovered on my own — to the attention of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to alert the chairman and ranking member," DeLay said in his letter.
"Upon learning of these accounting irregularities, I immediately requested that the trust undergo a full and complete audit from its June 2000 inception through 2004 to determine if any additional accountancy problems existed with the trust."
Perry, trustee of the Tom DeLay Legal Expense Trust, corrected the record in an Oct. 6 letter to the House ethics committee.
"I sincerely apologize for the oversights that made these amendments necessary," Perry wrote. "Congressman DeLay was not involved in these omissions. No mistakes were found after 2001."
In an interview, Perry said, "It was not an ethical lapse, it was a bookkeeping lapse. I did not review the reports thoroughly enough. The reports were filed under his signature but he relies on me for the reports."
In the third-quarter report that soon will be submitted to the House, Perry said $177,000 was donated by individuals in the quarter and an additional $141,000 by political committees, corporations and other entities.
In past years, the fund has paid legal bills in several ethics investigations of DeLay and in a racketeering suit filed by a House Democratic campaign organization. DeLay was admonished by the ethics panel on three occasions last year and the racketeering suit was closed in 2001.
Perry said $250,000 has been paid to lawyers so far in the Texas investigation, but he did not have a total for the Abramoff probe.
DeLay is charged in Texas with money laundering and conspiracy to violate Texas election laws.
Two grand juries have charged that DeLay and two political associates funneled corporate money to Texas legislative candidates — using the national Republican Party as a middleman — in violation of a a state law prohibiting use of corporate funds in state campaigns.
House Republican rules require leaders indicted on felony counts to step aside from their leadership posts.
1 hour, 15 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom DeLay has notified House officials that he failed to disclose all contributions to his legal defense fund as required by congressional rules.
The fund is currently paying DeLay's legal bills in a campaign finance investigation in Texas, where DeLay has been indicted, and in a federal investigation of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The lobbyist arranged foreign travel for DeLay and had his clients pay some of the cost.
DeLay, R-Texas, has denied wrongdoing in both cases.
DeLay wrote House officials that he started an audit and it found that $20,850 contributed in 2000 and 2001 to the defense fund was not reported anywhere.
An additional $17,300 was included in the defense fund's quarterly report but not in DeLay's 2000 annual financial disclosure report — a separate requirement. Other donations were understated as totaling $2,800 when the figure should have been $4,450.
House rules require quarterly reports of donations and expenditures by a lawmaker's legal defense fund. Donations exceeding $250 also must be disclosed on annual financial disclosure reports.
The Texas Republican, who has stepped down as majority leader due to felony indictments in the Texas probe, disclosed and corrected the past reporting mistakes.
The defense fund will report to the House in a few days that it received $318,000 in the third quarter of this year — the best fundraising quarter since it was started in June 2000, according to the trustee, Houston attorney Brent Perry.
On Oct. 13 DeLay wrote the clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, that the first inkling of inconsistencies in his disclosures came last February.
"I brought this matter — which I discovered on my own — to the attention of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to alert the chairman and ranking member," DeLay said in his letter.
"Upon learning of these accounting irregularities, I immediately requested that the trust undergo a full and complete audit from its June 2000 inception through 2004 to determine if any additional accountancy problems existed with the trust."
Perry, trustee of the Tom DeLay Legal Expense Trust, corrected the record in an Oct. 6 letter to the House ethics committee.
"I sincerely apologize for the oversights that made these amendments necessary," Perry wrote. "Congressman DeLay was not involved in these omissions. No mistakes were found after 2001."
In an interview, Perry said, "It was not an ethical lapse, it was a bookkeeping lapse. I did not review the reports thoroughly enough. The reports were filed under his signature but he relies on me for the reports."
In the third-quarter report that soon will be submitted to the House, Perry said $177,000 was donated by individuals in the quarter and an additional $141,000 by political committees, corporations and other entities.
In past years, the fund has paid legal bills in several ethics investigations of DeLay and in a racketeering suit filed by a House Democratic campaign organization. DeLay was admonished by the ethics panel on three occasions last year and the racketeering suit was closed in 2001.
Perry said $250,000 has been paid to lawyers so far in the Texas investigation, but he did not have a total for the Abramoff probe.
DeLay is charged in Texas with money laundering and conspiracy to violate Texas election laws.
Two grand juries have charged that DeLay and two political associates funneled corporate money to Texas legislative candidates — using the national Republican Party as a middleman — in violation of a a state law prohibiting use of corporate funds in state campaigns.
House Republican rules require leaders indicted on felony counts to step aside from their leadership posts.
QUOTE(SherryB @ Oct 26 2005, 05:34 PM)
DeLay Acknowledges Failure to Report Money By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 15 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom DeLay has notified House officials that he failed to disclose all contributions to his legal defense fund as required by congressional rules.
The fund is currently paying DeLay's legal bills in a campaign finance investigation in Texas, where DeLay has been indicted, and in a federal investigation of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The lobbyist arranged foreign travel for DeLay and had his clients pay some of the cost.
DeLay, R-Texas, has denied wrongdoing in both cases.
DeLay wrote House officials that he started an audit and it found that $20,850 contributed in 2000 and 2001 to the defense fund was not reported anywhere.
An additional $17,300 was included in the defense fund's quarterly report but not in DeLay's 2000 annual financial disclosure report — a separate requirement. Other donations were understated as totaling $2,800 when the figure should have been $4,450.
House rules require quarterly reports of donations and expenditures by a lawmaker's legal defense fund. Donations exceeding $250 also must be disclosed on annual financial disclosure reports.
The Texas Republican, who has stepped down as majority leader due to felony indictments in the Texas probe, disclosed and corrected the past reporting mistakes.
The defense fund will report to the House in a few days that it received $318,000 in the third quarter of this year — the best fundraising quarter since it was started in June 2000, according to the trustee, Houston attorney Brent Perry.
On Oct. 13 DeLay wrote the clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, that the first inkling of inconsistencies in his disclosures came last February.
"I brought this matter — which I discovered on my own — to the attention of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to alert the chairman and ranking member," DeLay said in his letter.
"Upon learning of these accounting irregularities, I immediately requested that the trust undergo a full and complete audit from its June 2000 inception through 2004 to determine if any additional accountancy problems existed with the trust."
Perry, trustee of the Tom DeLay Legal Expense Trust, corrected the record in an Oct. 6 letter to the House ethics committee.
"I sincerely apologize for the oversights that made these amendments necessary," Perry wrote. "Congressman DeLay was not involved in these omissions. No mistakes were found after 2001."
In an interview, Perry said, "It was not an ethical lapse, it was a bookkeeping lapse. I did not review the reports thoroughly enough. The reports were filed under his signature but he relies on me for the reports."
In the third-quarter report that soon will be submitted to the House, Perry said $177,000 was donated by individuals in the quarter and an additional $141,000 by political committees, corporations and other entities.
In past years, the fund has paid legal bills in several ethics investigations of DeLay and in a racketeering suit filed by a House Democratic campaign organization. DeLay was admonished by the ethics panel on three occasions last year and the racketeering suit was closed in 2001.
Perry said $250,000 has been paid to lawyers so far in the Texas investigation, but he did not have a total for the Abramoff probe.
DeLay is charged in Texas with money laundering and conspiracy to violate Texas election laws.
Two grand juries have charged that DeLay and two political associates funneled corporate money to Texas legislative candidates — using the national Republican Party as a middleman — in violation of a a state law prohibiting use of corporate funds in state campaigns.
House Republican rules require leaders indicted on felony counts to step aside from their leadership posts.
[right][snapback]142883[/snapback][/right]
1 hour, 15 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom DeLay has notified House officials that he failed to disclose all contributions to his legal defense fund as required by congressional rules.
The fund is currently paying DeLay's legal bills in a campaign finance investigation in Texas, where DeLay has been indicted, and in a federal investigation of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The lobbyist arranged foreign travel for DeLay and had his clients pay some of the cost.
DeLay, R-Texas, has denied wrongdoing in both cases.
DeLay wrote House officials that he started an audit and it found that $20,850 contributed in 2000 and 2001 to the defense fund was not reported anywhere.
An additional $17,300 was included in the defense fund's quarterly report but not in DeLay's 2000 annual financial disclosure report — a separate requirement. Other donations were understated as totaling $2,800 when the figure should have been $4,450.
House rules require quarterly reports of donations and expenditures by a lawmaker's legal defense fund. Donations exceeding $250 also must be disclosed on annual financial disclosure reports.
The Texas Republican, who has stepped down as majority leader due to felony indictments in the Texas probe, disclosed and corrected the past reporting mistakes.
The defense fund will report to the House in a few days that it received $318,000 in the third quarter of this year — the best fundraising quarter since it was started in June 2000, according to the trustee, Houston attorney Brent Perry.
On Oct. 13 DeLay wrote the clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, that the first inkling of inconsistencies in his disclosures came last February.
"I brought this matter — which I discovered on my own — to the attention of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to alert the chairman and ranking member," DeLay said in his letter.
"Upon learning of these accounting irregularities, I immediately requested that the trust undergo a full and complete audit from its June 2000 inception through 2004 to determine if any additional accountancy problems existed with the trust."
Perry, trustee of the Tom DeLay Legal Expense Trust, corrected the record in an Oct. 6 letter to the House ethics committee.
"I sincerely apologize for the oversights that made these amendments necessary," Perry wrote. "Congressman DeLay was not involved in these omissions. No mistakes were found after 2001."
In an interview, Perry said, "It was not an ethical lapse, it was a bookkeeping lapse. I did not review the reports thoroughly enough. The reports were filed under his signature but he relies on me for the reports."
In the third-quarter report that soon will be submitted to the House, Perry said $177,000 was donated by individuals in the quarter and an additional $141,000 by political committees, corporations and other entities.
In past years, the fund has paid legal bills in several ethics investigations of DeLay and in a racketeering suit filed by a House Democratic campaign organization. DeLay was admonished by the ethics panel on three occasions last year and the racketeering suit was closed in 2001.
Perry said $250,000 has been paid to lawyers so far in the Texas investigation, but he did not have a total for the Abramoff probe.
DeLay is charged in Texas with money laundering and conspiracy to violate Texas election laws.
Two grand juries have charged that DeLay and two political associates funneled corporate money to Texas legislative candidates — using the national Republican Party as a middleman — in violation of a a state law prohibiting use of corporate funds in state campaigns.
House Republican rules require leaders indicted on felony counts to step aside from their leadership posts.
[right][snapback]142883[/snapback][/right]
Link please.
QUOTE(Mizilus @ Oct 26 2005, 04:25 PM)
well, exposing a CIA WMD expert these days sure seems like treason to me. I think an example should be made of them. America should have started with ollie north and friends but can make up for that here.
[right][snapback]142871[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]142871[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE
I knew that what I was observing was not what Congress intended when it passed the 1947 National Security Act. The law created the National Security Council — consisting of the president, vice president and the secretaries of State and Defense — to make sure the nation's vital national security decisions were thoroughly vetted. The NSC has often been expanded, depending on the president in office, to include the CIA director, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Treasury secretary and others, and it has accumulated a staff of sometimes more than 100 people.
But many of the most crucial decisions from 2001 to 2005 were not made within the traditional NSC process.
Scholars and knowledgeable critics of the U.S. decision-making process may rightly say, so what? Haven't all of our presidents in the last half-century failed to conform to the usual process at one time or another? Isn't it the president's prerogative to make decisions with whomever he pleases? Moreover, can he not ignore whomever he pleases? Why should we care that President Bush gave over much of the critical decision-making to his vice president and his secretary of Defense?
Both as a former academic and as a person who has been in the ring with the bull, I believe that there are two reasons we should care. First, such departures from the process have in the past led us into a host of disasters, including the last years of the Vietnam War, the national embarrassment of Watergate (and the first resignation of a president in our history), the Iran-Contra scandal and now the ruinous foreign policy of George W. Bush.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...0,7455395.story
But many of the most crucial decisions from 2001 to 2005 were not made within the traditional NSC process.
Scholars and knowledgeable critics of the U.S. decision-making process may rightly say, so what? Haven't all of our presidents in the last half-century failed to conform to the usual process at one time or another? Isn't it the president's prerogative to make decisions with whomever he pleases? Moreover, can he not ignore whomever he pleases? Why should we care that President Bush gave over much of the critical decision-making to his vice president and his secretary of Defense?
Both as a former academic and as a person who has been in the ring with the bull, I believe that there are two reasons we should care. First, such departures from the process have in the past led us into a host of disasters, including the last years of the Vietnam War, the national embarrassment of Watergate (and the first resignation of a president in our history), the Iran-Contra scandal and now the ruinous foreign policy of George W. Bush.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...0,7455395.story
QUOTE(Mizilus @ Oct 26 2005, 09:51 PM)
daddy traitor himself called someone who did such a thing "the most insidious of traitors". Well thats the one thing agree with him on.
[right][snapback]142875[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]142875[/snapback][/right]
Just goes back to panties, miz......
Ahhhhh yes... the witch hunt defense.
EX-Ala. Governor, Hospital Exec Indicted
By PHILLIP RAWLS, Associated Press Writer
MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- Federal prosecutors in Alabama have re-indicted two of the state's most recent high-profile defendants, former Gov. Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth Corp. founder Richard Scrushy.
The indictments announced Wednesday, which included two other former state officials, accuse the men of belonging to what the government called a "widespread racketeering conspiracy."
The charges come five months after Scrushy was acquitted of masterminding a $2.7 billion accounting fraud at HealthSouth. They also may complicate Siegelman's campaign to reclaim the governorship next year.
Prosecutors also indicted two other men -- Siegelman's chief of staff, Paul Michael Hamrick, and the former director of the Alabama Department of Transportation, Gary Mack Roberts.
The charges were first brought against Siegelman and Scrushy in May, but were filed under seal so Scrushy's trial in the fraud case wouldn't be disrupted.
Siegelman, who was governor from 1999 to 2003, was charged with racketeering, fraud, bribery, extortion and obstruction of justice. The former governor was expected to turn himself in later this week.
A spokesman for Scrushy said he would have a news conference Thursday in Birmingham to address the allegations.
Siegelman, a Democrat, called the probe a political witch hunt by Republican prosecutors, saying the charges were made by "obsessed government officials who spent millions in tax dollars in a pathetic attempt to control the election for governor."
Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, denied the allegation. "This case has nothing to do with politics. Public integrity does not do politics," he said.
In all, Siegelman is accused of soliciting more than $1 million for himself, his 1998 campaign for governor or his unsuccessful bid in 1999 to get Alabama voters to approve a state lottery.
The indictment claims Scrushy made "two disguised payments" totaling $500,000 to Siegelman in exchange for Siegelman appointing him to the state's Certificate of Need Review Board, which decides on hospital expansions.
Hamrick said he was "absolutely" innocent of any wrongdoing and said federal prosecutors had been trying to find wrongdoing in the Siegelman administration for more than five years.
"One of the things that's very obvious is that if there was anything that had gone wrong it wouldn't take six years to figure out how to make a charge," Hamrick said.
Roberts did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Siegelman said he has no intentions of dropping out of next year's governor's race. He hopes to unseat Republican Gov. Bob Riley, the man who beat him in 2002.
"When this trial is over, we will be shown to be absolutely innocent of these charges. The people of Alabama will be able to see it was a farce and a waste of taxpayer's money," the former governor said.
The charges against the former governor come one year after a federal judge threw out a separate charge accusing Siegelman and Hamrick of rigging bids on state Medicaid contracts.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...ation-headlines
EX-Ala. Governor, Hospital Exec Indicted
By PHILLIP RAWLS, Associated Press Writer
MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- Federal prosecutors in Alabama have re-indicted two of the state's most recent high-profile defendants, former Gov. Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth Corp. founder Richard Scrushy.
The indictments announced Wednesday, which included two other former state officials, accuse the men of belonging to what the government called a "widespread racketeering conspiracy."
The charges come five months after Scrushy was acquitted of masterminding a $2.7 billion accounting fraud at HealthSouth. They also may complicate Siegelman's campaign to reclaim the governorship next year.
Prosecutors also indicted two other men -- Siegelman's chief of staff, Paul Michael Hamrick, and the former director of the Alabama Department of Transportation, Gary Mack Roberts.
The charges were first brought against Siegelman and Scrushy in May, but were filed under seal so Scrushy's trial in the fraud case wouldn't be disrupted.
Siegelman, who was governor from 1999 to 2003, was charged with racketeering, fraud, bribery, extortion and obstruction of justice. The former governor was expected to turn himself in later this week.
A spokesman for Scrushy said he would have a news conference Thursday in Birmingham to address the allegations.
Siegelman, a Democrat, called the probe a political witch hunt by Republican prosecutors, saying the charges were made by "obsessed government officials who spent millions in tax dollars in a pathetic attempt to control the election for governor."
Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, denied the allegation. "This case has nothing to do with politics. Public integrity does not do politics," he said.
In all, Siegelman is accused of soliciting more than $1 million for himself, his 1998 campaign for governor or his unsuccessful bid in 1999 to get Alabama voters to approve a state lottery.
The indictment claims Scrushy made "two disguised payments" totaling $500,000 to Siegelman in exchange for Siegelman appointing him to the state's Certificate of Need Review Board, which decides on hospital expansions.
Hamrick said he was "absolutely" innocent of any wrongdoing and said federal prosecutors had been trying to find wrongdoing in the Siegelman administration for more than five years.
"One of the things that's very obvious is that if there was anything that had gone wrong it wouldn't take six years to figure out how to make a charge," Hamrick said.
Roberts did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Siegelman said he has no intentions of dropping out of next year's governor's race. He hopes to unseat Republican Gov. Bob Riley, the man who beat him in 2002.
"When this trial is over, we will be shown to be absolutely innocent of these charges. The people of Alabama will be able to see it was a farce and a waste of taxpayer's money," the former governor said.
The charges against the former governor come one year after a federal judge threw out a separate charge accusing Siegelman and Hamrick of rigging bids on state Medicaid contracts.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...ation-headlines
Grand jury issues new subpoenas for DeLay
By April Castro, Associated Press Writer | October 27, 2005
AUSTIN, Texas --A Texas prosecutor asked Thursday for all e-mail sent and received in 2002 by three indicted associates of U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay as part of an investigation into an alleged campaign finance scheme.
The latest subpoenas issued by District Attorney Ronnie Earle request correspondence to and from e-mail addresses belonging to John Colyandro, Jim Ellis and Warren RoBold. He did not ask DeLay to provide e-mails.
Colyandro was executive director of Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee founded by DeLay. Ellis runs DeLay's national fundraising committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, and RoBold is a Republican fundraiser in Washington.
Prosecutors allege that DeLay and his associates funneled corporate money given to the Texas committee to an arm of the Republican National Committee, which sent it back to seven GOP candidates for the Texas Legislature. Texas law prohibits corporate money from being used directly in a political campaign.
DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro are charged with conspiracy and money laundering. Colyandro and RoBold are charged with accepting or making restricted corporate donations.
Among the information being requested, the subpoenas seek records from DeLay's political committee in Texas, including billing information and subscriber and recipient details.
The prosecutor also repeated a request for telephone records from DeLay's daughter, Danielle DeLay Ferro, a political consultant who did work for DeLay's Texas committee.
"It's interesting that they're trying to find evidence at this late date," said Ellis' attorney J.D. Pauerstein, who on Thursday filed motions to get the charges against Ellis dismissed.
Earle, who conducts the grand jury, did not comment on the latest subpoenas.
DeLay's legal team, meanwhile, sought subpoenas for three Texas officials -- state Democratic party chair Charles Soechting; David Reisman, executive director of the Texas Ethics Commission; and Chris Elliott, chairman of the Travis County Democratic Party in Austin.
The officials may be asked to testify at a hearing Tuesday to decide whether state District Judge Bob Perkins should continue to preside over DeLay's case. DeLay wants the judge removed because of contributions Perkins has made to the Democratic candidates and causes.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...enas_for_delay/
By April Castro, Associated Press Writer | October 27, 2005
AUSTIN, Texas --A Texas prosecutor asked Thursday for all e-mail sent and received in 2002 by three indicted associates of U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay as part of an investigation into an alleged campaign finance scheme.
The latest subpoenas issued by District Attorney Ronnie Earle request correspondence to and from e-mail addresses belonging to John Colyandro, Jim Ellis and Warren RoBold. He did not ask DeLay to provide e-mails.
Colyandro was executive director of Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee founded by DeLay. Ellis runs DeLay's national fundraising committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, and RoBold is a Republican fundraiser in Washington.
Prosecutors allege that DeLay and his associates funneled corporate money given to the Texas committee to an arm of the Republican National Committee, which sent it back to seven GOP candidates for the Texas Legislature. Texas law prohibits corporate money from being used directly in a political campaign.
DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro are charged with conspiracy and money laundering. Colyandro and RoBold are charged with accepting or making restricted corporate donations.
Among the information being requested, the subpoenas seek records from DeLay's political committee in Texas, including billing information and subscriber and recipient details.
The prosecutor also repeated a request for telephone records from DeLay's daughter, Danielle DeLay Ferro, a political consultant who did work for DeLay's Texas committee.
"It's interesting that they're trying to find evidence at this late date," said Ellis' attorney J.D. Pauerstein, who on Thursday filed motions to get the charges against Ellis dismissed.
Earle, who conducts the grand jury, did not comment on the latest subpoenas.
DeLay's legal team, meanwhile, sought subpoenas for three Texas officials -- state Democratic party chair Charles Soechting; David Reisman, executive director of the Texas Ethics Commission; and Chris Elliott, chairman of the Travis County Democratic Party in Austin.
The officials may be asked to testify at a hearing Tuesday to decide whether state District Judge Bob Perkins should continue to preside over DeLay's case. DeLay wants the judge removed because of contributions Perkins has made to the Democratic candidates and causes.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...enas_for_delay/
One plus for DeLay, with Rove or Scooter being indicted and Frist being questioned there is less attention on him. 
well there still might yet be another disaster or a woman on life support so he can crawl out from under his rock and pretend to be concerned.
Brit Hume Minimizes US Deaths in Iraq
Unlike other broadcasters who have dedicated air time to honoring the ultimate sacrifice of soldiers in Iraq, Fox News's Brit Hume has chosen instead to minimize their deaths. Courtesy of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), here’s a sampling of Brit Hume’s recent comments:
October 13, 2005: “By historic standards, these casualties are negligible.”
August 24, 2005: “By historic standards, military standards, these casualties in Iraq are quite low."
August 4, 2005, following a day in which 18 U.S. troops were killed in combat: “Of course, by historical standards, these casualties, even after this attack this week, are minor, I mean, militarily minor."
September 7, 2004, after the death toll passed the 1,000 mark: “The question is, how important a milestone is this? Is it militarily significant or psychologically important, both, neither?”
These tortured dismissals are nothing new for Hume, dating back to August of 2003. Then, Hume reprehensibly compared soldier deaths in Iraq to murder deaths in California.
Two hundred seventy-seven U.S. soldiers have now died in Iraq, which means that statistically speaking U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size. The most recent statistics indicate California has more than 2,300 homicides each year, which means about 6.6 murders each day. Meanwhile, U.S. troops have been in Iraq for 160 days, which means they're incurring about 1.7 deaths, including illness and accidents each day.
That's right, serving in Iraq is no more dangerous than walking down Ventura Boulevard. Statistically, of course! As FAIR notes, the comparison stinks: “Hume's geographic comparison was meaningless, since the total population of California is far greater than the number of U.S. troops in Iraq--approximately 240 times greater. If Californians were being killed at the same rate that Hume cited for U.S. soldiers, there would be more than 400 murders per day, not six.”
You can contact Brit Hume at the following:
Special Report with Brit Hume
special@foxnews.com
by Eric Hananoki on October 27, 2005 - 4:41pm. » Eric Hananoki's blog | 105 comments
http://shows.airamericaradio.com/alfrankenshow/
Unlike other broadcasters who have dedicated air time to honoring the ultimate sacrifice of soldiers in Iraq, Fox News's Brit Hume has chosen instead to minimize their deaths. Courtesy of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), here’s a sampling of Brit Hume’s recent comments:
October 13, 2005: “By historic standards, these casualties are negligible.”
August 24, 2005: “By historic standards, military standards, these casualties in Iraq are quite low."
August 4, 2005, following a day in which 18 U.S. troops were killed in combat: “Of course, by historical standards, these casualties, even after this attack this week, are minor, I mean, militarily minor."
September 7, 2004, after the death toll passed the 1,000 mark: “The question is, how important a milestone is this? Is it militarily significant or psychologically important, both, neither?”
These tortured dismissals are nothing new for Hume, dating back to August of 2003. Then, Hume reprehensibly compared soldier deaths in Iraq to murder deaths in California.
Two hundred seventy-seven U.S. soldiers have now died in Iraq, which means that statistically speaking U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size. The most recent statistics indicate California has more than 2,300 homicides each year, which means about 6.6 murders each day. Meanwhile, U.S. troops have been in Iraq for 160 days, which means they're incurring about 1.7 deaths, including illness and accidents each day.
That's right, serving in Iraq is no more dangerous than walking down Ventura Boulevard. Statistically, of course! As FAIR notes, the comparison stinks: “Hume's geographic comparison was meaningless, since the total population of California is far greater than the number of U.S. troops in Iraq--approximately 240 times greater. If Californians were being killed at the same rate that Hume cited for U.S. soldiers, there would be more than 400 murders per day, not six.”
You can contact Brit Hume at the following:
Special Report with Brit Hume
special@foxnews.com
by Eric Hananoki on October 27, 2005 - 4:41pm. » Eric Hananoki's blog | 105 comments
http://shows.airamericaradio.com/alfrankenshow/
Fitzgerald to hold news conference
Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:36 AM ET17
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The special counsel investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's identity will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. EDT on Friday to discuss the status of the probe, his office said in a statement.
The statement said information on the case will be available at noon.
The announcement came after the federal grand jury weighing criminal charges over the leak began meeting with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, with the expectation of criminal charges in the long-running investigation.
Legal sources said Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, appeared likely to be charged, and perhaps other officials also.
But legal sources said Fitzgerald had informed President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, that he will not be indicted on Friday, although he will remain under investigation and in legal jeopardy. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, had no immediate comment.
Charges in the case would be the first in a two-year probe that began with an investigation of who disclosed CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....S-BUSH-LEAK.xml
Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:36 AM ET17
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The special counsel investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's identity will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. EDT on Friday to discuss the status of the probe, his office said in a statement.
The statement said information on the case will be available at noon.
The announcement came after the federal grand jury weighing criminal charges over the leak began meeting with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, with the expectation of criminal charges in the long-running investigation.
Legal sources said Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, appeared likely to be charged, and perhaps other officials also.
But legal sources said Fitzgerald had informed President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, that he will not be indicted on Friday, although he will remain under investigation and in legal jeopardy. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, had no immediate comment.
Charges in the case would be the first in a two-year probe that began with an investigation of who disclosed CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....S-BUSH-LEAK.xml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5102901223.html
Crikey, Aunt Becky! Even with all the caveats of hot news day, uninformed public, flash poll, small sample, that's freaking AWFUL!
QUOTE
White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned
55% in Survey Say Libby Case Signals Broader Problems
By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page A14
A majority of Americans say the indictment of senior White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby signals broader ethical problems in the Bush administration, and nearly half say the overall level of honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen since President Bush took office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News survey.
The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found that 55 percent of the public believes the Libby case indicates wider problems "with ethical wrongdoing" in the White House, while 41 percent believes it was an "isolated incident." And by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under Bush.
In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans -- 34 percent -- think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton's standing on this issue when he left office.
The survey also found that nearly seven in 10 Americans consider the charges against Libby to be serious. A majority -- 55 percent -- said the decision of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to bring charges against Libby was based on the facts of the case, while 30 percent said he was motivated by partisan politics. (large snip)
The survey found some areas of general agreement. Most Republicans, 57 percent, said that the obstruction of justice and perjury charges are serious, compared with 81 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents.
But once past the specifics of the charges against Libby, Republicans and Democrats differed dramatically. While a large majority of Democrats (76 percent) said the case is a sign of broader ethical problems in the administration, an equally large majority of Republicans (69 percent) said it was an isolated matter. Most Republicans continued to give Bush high marks for his handling of ethics in government, while Democrats overwhelmingly graded him poorly.
Note from me: Exact question phrasing and question order at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ss...tpoll102905.htm
55% in Survey Say Libby Case Signals Broader Problems
By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page A14
A majority of Americans say the indictment of senior White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby signals broader ethical problems in the Bush administration, and nearly half say the overall level of honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen since President Bush took office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News survey.
The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found that 55 percent of the public believes the Libby case indicates wider problems "with ethical wrongdoing" in the White House, while 41 percent believes it was an "isolated incident." And by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under Bush.
In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans -- 34 percent -- think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton's standing on this issue when he left office.
The survey also found that nearly seven in 10 Americans consider the charges against Libby to be serious. A majority -- 55 percent -- said the decision of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to bring charges against Libby was based on the facts of the case, while 30 percent said he was motivated by partisan politics. (large snip)
The survey found some areas of general agreement. Most Republicans, 57 percent, said that the obstruction of justice and perjury charges are serious, compared with 81 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents.
But once past the specifics of the charges against Libby, Republicans and Democrats differed dramatically. While a large majority of Democrats (76 percent) said the case is a sign of broader ethical problems in the administration, an equally large majority of Republicans (69 percent) said it was an isolated matter. Most Republicans continued to give Bush high marks for his handling of ethics in government, while Democrats overwhelmingly graded him poorly.
Note from me: Exact question phrasing and question order at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ss...tpoll102905.htm
Crikey, Aunt Becky! Even with all the caveats of hot news day, uninformed public, flash poll, small sample, that's freaking AWFUL!
I'm watching Brooks on Meet the Press. The man is either a shameless liar or he's a complete idiot.
No cancer of corruption in the Bush administration? laughable.
William Saffire? What a waste of a suit.
THIS IS NO LIBERAL MEDIA.
No cancer of corruption in the Bush administration? laughable.
William Saffire? What a waste of a suit.
THIS IS NO LIBERAL MEDIA.
This ain't your fathers' libural media.
That one was made out of real steel. Not plastic robots.
QUOTE
And by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under Bush.
Well of course it has. Only a deluded, brain-dead zombie true believer would buy the lie that either Bush/Cheney or the Republicans have returned anything even close to honor or decency to DC.
I just watched a clip of Bush and Cheney before 2000 saying they would return ethics, honor, and decency to the White House.
Nice.
"returned" as in, some other party has removed.
From This Week. George Bush just before the 2000 election.
QUOTE
In my administration we will ask not only what is legal, but what's right.
Not just what the lawyers will allow, but the public deserves.
Not just what the lawyers will allow, but the public deserves.
Cornyn on This Week.
What a pack of liars the Republicans have become.
What a pack of liars the Republicans have become.
QUOTE(davisął @ Oct 30 2005, 04:54 PM)
Cornyn on This Week.
What a pack of liars the Republicans have become.
[right][snapback]144465[/snapback][/right]
What a pack of liars the Republicans have become.
[right][snapback]144465[/snapback][/right]
Gosh...I'd love to stay and collect these pearls but I gotta get ready for the weekly faith-based rally.
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Oct 30 2005, 11:56 AM)
Gosh...I'd love to stay and collect these pearls but I gotta get ready for the weekly faith-based rally.
[right][snapback]144466[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]144466[/snapback][/right]
Have a nice one.
QUOTE(davisął @ Oct 30 2005, 08:54 AM)
Cornyn on This Week.
What a pack of liars the Republicans have become.
[right][snapback]144465[/snapback][/right]
What a pack of liars the Republicans have become.
[right][snapback]144465[/snapback][/right]
Davis!
Come now. After Watergate and Iran/Contra and now this?
QUOTE(Mizilus @ Oct 30 2005, 12:17 PM)
Davis!
Come now. After Watergate and Iran/Contra and now this?
[right][snapback]144470[/snapback][/right]
Come now. After Watergate and Iran/Contra and now this?
[right][snapback]144470[/snapback][/right]
weeeellllll.... I don't recall...
Hillary Fraudham Clinton, Press Briefing, February 22, 2001 (brief translation to follow)
You know, you know, you know, . . .
. . . You know, it came as a surprise to me. . .You know, I did not have any involvement. . . you know. . .Oh, you know. . . you know, asked me to pass on information. . .I don't know. . .I don't know. . .Well, you'll have to—you'll have to. . . If I had known. . .I didn't know. . .And I'm very regretful. . .that I didn't know. . .I don't know anything. . .And I did not learn
. . .I did not know. . .I learned. . .I did not know. . . I found out. . .My husband found out. . .I knew nothing. . .But I know
. . . you know. . .And I had no. . .but, you know. . But I didn't know. . .I did not know. . .. . .you know. . .Well, you know
. . . rumors. . You know, I really—you know,vague rumors. . . you know. . You know. . You know. . You know
. . .very sad. . .I did not ask him. I did not ask him. . .You know. Well, you know. . .You know. . . constitutional power
. . .Well, you know. . .my Senate career. . .I regret. . .You know. . .I've spent a lot. . .So I have my hands full. . .I love doing it. . .really good time doing it. . .You know. . .I don't know. I wish I knew. . .we are. . .You know. . .bad. There's no doubt about that. . .You know. . .people will have to judge me. . .Well, you know. . . And you know . . . I guess. And I know. . .No. . .You know, I don't have any memory. . .You know, that's my best memory. And, you know. . .I will repeat
. . .You know. . .I just don't remember. . .I don't want you to try to put words in my mouth. . .I knew nothing. . .I knew nothing. . .I had no knowledge. . . I think that, you know, you really. . .hope the press can do. . .the ordinary. . .and a family member. . .You know. . You know. . .a very big—very big. . .You know. . .You know, I can't speak. . .You know. . . motivations. . .You know, I think. . .I don't. . .We don't—you know, we don't. . . We don't—I don't. . . I think. . . I'm very sorry. . .You know. . .My husband, Vince. . .No. You know. . . knew. . You know. . .pass. . . You know. . .I knew nothing. . .I don't know. . .I believe so, but I don't know. . .You know. . .I don't know. . .And I know. . You know. . .And I know. . .I know nothing. . . you know. . .You know. . .You know, I don't know. . . Justice. . .That's all I know. . .I did not know. . .You know. . .I have no. . .You know. . .friend. . .You know. . .You know. . . I have not—I don't have. . .I don't know anything. . .You know, if—and if. . .You know. . . I didn't even know. . .I believe that's the case, absolutely believe that's the case. As far as I know there was no. . .You know. . .My husband. . .he didn't know. . . And so. . .I know
. . .was no. . . you know. . .me. . .I don't know. . .And I don't. . .I either know. . .don't know. . .I don't. . .No. . .You know. . .My husband. . . You know. . .The Constitution. . .I ever knew. . . you know. . .context. . .Context . . .pardons
. . .hundreds. . .a hundred. . .I know. . .You know. . .I can't, you know. No. . .You know. . . vast. . Pardons . . .big
. . .motivation. . .You know. . .You know. . . motivations. . .You know. . .You know. . .
"I am endlessly fascinated by her. . . She's so smart. Virtually every time I've seen her perform, she has knocked my socks off."—CBS News reporter Lesley Stahl on Hillary Clinton, December 8, 1999.
You know, you know, you know, . . .
. . . You know, it came as a surprise to me. . .You know, I did not have any involvement. . . you know. . .Oh, you know. . . you know, asked me to pass on information. . .I don't know. . .I don't know. . .Well, you'll have to—you'll have to. . . If I had known. . .I didn't know. . .And I'm very regretful. . .that I didn't know. . .I don't know anything. . .And I did not learn
. . .I did not know. . .I learned. . .I did not know. . . I found out. . .My husband found out. . .I knew nothing. . .But I know
. . . you know. . .And I had no. . .but, you know. . But I didn't know. . .I did not know. . .. . .you know. . .Well, you know
. . . rumors. . You know, I really—you know,vague rumors. . . you know. . You know. . You know. . You know
. . .very sad. . .I did not ask him. I did not ask him. . .You know. Well, you know. . .You know. . . constitutional power
. . .Well, you know. . .my Senate career. . .I regret. . .You know. . .I've spent a lot. . .So I have my hands full. . .I love doing it. . .really good time doing it. . .You know. . .I don't know. I wish I knew. . .we are. . .You know. . .bad. There's no doubt about that. . .You know. . .people will have to judge me. . .Well, you know. . . And you know . . . I guess. And I know. . .No. . .You know, I don't have any memory. . .You know, that's my best memory. And, you know. . .I will repeat
. . .You know. . .I just don't remember. . .I don't want you to try to put words in my mouth. . .I knew nothing. . .I knew nothing. . .I had no knowledge. . . I think that, you know, you really. . .hope the press can do. . .the ordinary. . .and a family member. . .You know. . You know. . .a very big—very big. . .You know. . .You know, I can't speak. . .You know. . . motivations. . .You know, I think. . .I don't. . .We don't—you know, we don't. . . We don't—I don't. . . I think. . . I'm very sorry. . .You know. . .My husband, Vince. . .No. You know. . . knew. . You know. . .pass. . . You know. . .I knew nothing. . .I don't know. . .I believe so, but I don't know. . .You know. . .I don't know. . .And I know. . You know. . .And I know. . .I know nothing. . . you know. . .You know. . .You know, I don't know. . . Justice. . .That's all I know. . .I did not know. . .You know. . .I have no. . .You know. . .friend. . .You know. . .You know. . . I have not—I don't have. . .I don't know anything. . .You know, if—and if. . .You know. . . I didn't even know. . .I believe that's the case, absolutely believe that's the case. As far as I know there was no. . .You know. . .My husband. . .he didn't know. . . And so. . .I know
. . .was no. . . you know. . .me. . .I don't know. . .And I don't. . .I either know. . .don't know. . .I don't. . .No. . .You know. . .My husband. . . You know. . .The Constitution. . .I ever knew. . . you know. . .context. . .Context . . .pardons
. . .hundreds. . .a hundred. . .I know. . .You know. . .I can't, you know. No. . .You know. . . vast. . Pardons . . .big
. . .motivation. . .You know. . .You know. . . motivations. . .You know. . .You know. . .
"I am endlessly fascinated by her. . . She's so smart. Virtually every time I've seen her perform, she has knocked my socks off."—CBS News reporter Lesley Stahl on Hillary Clinton, December 8, 1999.
QUOTE
"I am endlessly fascinated by her. . . She's so smart. Virtually every time I've seen her perform, she has knocked my socks off."—CBS News reporter Lesley Stahl on Hillary Clinton, December 8, 1999.
"George Bush is one of the most brilliant men I've ever met." Harriet Miers.
"Texass is so lucky."
(Videotape, September 23, 2000):
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: Just because our White House has let us down in the past, that doesn't mean it's going to happen in the future.
In a campaign that's going to restore honor and dignity to the White House.
(End videotape)
(Videotape, August 2, 2000):
VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: On the first hour of the first day, we will restore decency and integrity to the Oval Office.
They will offer more lectures and legalisms and carefully worded denials.
We offer another way, a better way, and a stiff dose of truth.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: And, as you know, on September 30, of 2003, President Bush said this...
(Videotape, September 30, 2003):
PRES. BUSH: If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it. And we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: What does George W. Bush do now? Ken Duberstein.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9851407/
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: Just because our White House has let us down in the past, that doesn't mean it's going to happen in the future.
In a campaign that's going to restore honor and dignity to the White House.
(End videotape)
(Videotape, August 2, 2000):
VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: On the first hour of the first day, we will restore decency and integrity to the Oval Office.
They will offer more lectures and legalisms and carefully worded denials.
We offer another way, a better way, and a stiff dose of truth.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: And, as you know, on September 30, of 2003, President Bush said this...
(Videotape, September 30, 2003):
PRES. BUSH: If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it. And we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: What does George W. Bush do now? Ken Duberstein.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9851407/
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Oct 30 2005, 12:53 PM)
Hillary Fraudham Clinton, Press Briefing, February 22, 2001 (brief translation to follow)
You know, you know, you know, . . .
. . . You know, it came as a surprise to me. . .You know, I did not have any involvement. . . you know. . .Oh, you know. . . you know, asked me to pass on information. . .I don't know. . .I don't know. . .Well, you'll have to—you'll have to. . . If I had known. . .I didn't know. . .And I'm very regretful. . .that I didn't know. . .I don't know anything. . .And I did not learn
. . .I did not know. . .I learned. . .I did not know. . . I found out. . .My husband found out. . .I knew nothing. . .But I know
. . . you know. . .And I had no. . .but, you know. . But I didn't know. . .I did not know. . .. . .you know. . .Well, you know
. . . rumors. . You know, I really—you know,vague rumors. . . you know. . You know. . You know. . You know
. . .very sad. . .I did not ask him. I did not ask him. . .You know. Well, you know. . .You know. . . constitutional power
. . .Well, you know. . .my Senate career. . .I regret. . .You know. . .I've spent a lot. . .So I have my hands full. . .I love doing it. . .really good time doing it. . .You know. . .I don't know. I wish I knew. . .we are. . .You know. . .bad. There's no doubt about that. . .You know. . .people will have to judge me. . .Well, you know. . . And you know . . . I guess. And I know. . .No. . .You know, I don't have any memory. . .You know, that's my best memory. And, you know. . .I will repeat
. . .You know. . .I just don't remember. . .I don't want you to try to put words in my mouth. . .I knew nothing. . .I knew nothing. . .I had no knowledge. . . I think that, you know, you really. . .hope the press can do. . .the ordinary. . .and a family member. . .You know. . You know. . .a very big—very big. . .You know. . .You know, I can't speak. . .You know. . . motivations. . .You know, I think. . .I don't. . .We don't—you know, we don't. . . We don't—I don't. . . I think. . . I'm very sorry. . .You know. . .My husband, Vince. . .No. You know. . . knew. . You know. . .pass. . . You know. . .I knew nothing. . .I don't know. . .I believe so, but I don't know. . .You know. . .I don't know. . .And I know. . You know. . .And I know. . .I know nothing. . . you know. . .You know. . .You know, I don't know. . . Justice. . .That's all I know. . .I did not know. . .You know. . .I have no. . .You know. . .friend. . .You know. . .You know. . . I have not—I don't have. . .I don't know anything. . .You know, if—and if. . .You know. . . I didn't even know. . .I believe that's the case, absolutely believe that's the case. As far as I know there was no. . .You know. . .My husband. . .he didn't know. . . And so. . .I know
. . .was no. . . you know. . .me. . .I don't know. . .And I don't. . .I either know. . .don't know. . .I don't. . .No. . .You know. . .My husband. . . You know. . .The Constitution. . .I ever knew. . . you know. . .context. . .Context . . .pardons
. . .hundreds. . .a hundred. . .I know. . .You know. . .I can't, you know. No. . .You know. . . vast. . Pardons . . .big
. . .motivation. . .You know. . .You know. . . motivations. . .You know. . .You know. . .
"I am endlessly fascinated by her. . . She's so smart. Virtually every time I've seen her perform, she has knocked my socks off."—CBS News reporter Lesley Stahl on Hillary Clinton, December 8, 1999.
[right][snapback]144494[/snapback][/right]
You know, you know, you know, . . .
. . . You know, it came as a surprise to me. . .You know, I did not have any involvement. . . you know. . .Oh, you know. . . you know, asked me to pass on information. . .I don't know. . .I don't know. . .Well, you'll have to—you'll have to. . . If I had known. . .I didn't know. . .And I'm very regretful. . .that I didn't know. . .I don't know anything. . .And I did not learn
. . .I did not know. . .I learned. . .I did not know. . . I found out. . .My husband found out. . .I knew nothing. . .But I know
. . . you know. . .And I had no. . .but, you know. . But I didn't know. . .I did not know. . .. . .you know. . .Well, you know
. . . rumors. . You know, I really—you know,vague rumors. . . you know. . You know. . You know. . You know
. . .very sad. . .I did not ask him. I did not ask him. . .You know. Well, you know. . .You know. . . constitutional power
. . .Well, you know. . .my Senate career. . .I regret. . .You know. . .I've spent a lot. . .So I have my hands full. . .I love doing it. . .really good time doing it. . .You know. . .I don't know. I wish I knew. . .we are. . .You know. . .bad. There's no doubt about that. . .You know. . .people will have to judge me. . .Well, you know. . . And you know . . . I guess. And I know. . .No. . .You know, I don't have any memory. . .You know, that's my best memory. And, you know. . .I will repeat
. . .You know. . .I just don't remember. . .I don't want you to try to put words in my mouth. . .I knew nothing. . .I knew nothing. . .I had no knowledge. . . I think that, you know, you really. . .hope the press can do. . .the ordinary. . .and a family member. . .You know. . You know. . .a very big—very big. . .You know. . .You know, I can't speak. . .You know. . . motivations. . .You know, I think. . .I don't. . .We don't—you know, we don't. . . We don't—I don't. . . I think. . . I'm very sorry. . .You know. . .My husband, Vince. . .No. You know. . . knew. . You know. . .pass. . . You know. . .I knew nothing. . .I don't know. . .I believe so, but I don't know. . .You know. . .I don't know. . .And I know. . You know. . .And I know. . .I know nothing. . . you know. . .You know. . .You know, I don't know. . . Justice. . .That's all I know. . .I did not know. . .You know. . .I have no. . .You know. . .friend. . .You know. . .You know. . . I have not—I don't have. . .I don't know anything. . .You know, if—and if. . .You know. . . I didn't even know. . .I believe that's the case, absolutely believe that's the case. As far as I know there was no. . .You know. . .My husband. . .he didn't know. . . And so. . .I know
. . .was no. . . you know. . .me. . .I don't know. . .And I don't. . .I either know. . .don't know. . .I don't. . .No. . .You know. . .My husband. . . You know. . .The Constitution. . .I ever knew. . . you know. . .context. . .Context . . .pardons
. . .hundreds. . .a hundred. . .I know. . .You know. . .I can't, you know. No. . .You know. . . vast. . Pardons . . .big
. . .motivation. . .You know. . .You know. . . motivations. . .You know. . .You know. . .
"I am endlessly fascinated by her. . . She's so smart. Virtually every time I've seen her perform, she has knocked my socks off."—CBS News reporter Lesley Stahl on Hillary Clinton, December 8, 1999.
[right][snapback]144494[/snapback][/right]
H. Clnton legacy:
FIRST LADY OF CORRUPTION
Corruption is in a Republican's nature. The Contract for America is meaningless. They are wholly corrupt and their faith-based supporters have been poisoned by campaign contributions.
The rightwing's usual response to investigations of their own. Attack. Smear. Here it comes. This will make the Rush parrot happy.
Sunday, Oct. 30, 2005 10:02 a.m. EST
Patrick Fitzgerald Indicted 60 Republicans
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is said to be "non-partisan" and "apolitical" - but as U.S. attorney in Chicago, a job he continues to hold as he heads up the Leakgate probe, the targets of his investigations into political corruption have been overwhelmingly Republican.
The media is fond of noting that Fitzgerald, who rocked the Bush administration on Friday with the indictment of Lewis Libby, has indicted two aides to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley - a Democrat.
But reporters seldom note that Fitzgerald's biggest case prior to Leakgate is his ongoing corruption probe into former Illinois Republican Governor George Ryan, who happens to be on trial right now.
Fitzgerald indicted Ryan on corruption charges in December 2003, the same month he was tapped to probe Leakgate, in an investigation that saw more than 60 indictments of Ryan administration figures and political appointees.
For those keeping score on Mr. Fitzgerald's political targets, the count currently stands at 60-plus Republicans vs. 2 Democrats - not counting Mr. Libby.
One aspect of Fitzgerald's Chicago prosecution has rankled more than a few observers - his decision to indict the fiance of his star witness against Ryan.
Top Ryan aide Scott Fawell had repeatedly protested that he knew of nothing that would implicate Ryan in wrongdoing.
But Fawell was already under indictment by Fitzgerald on separate corruption charges. And when Fitzgerald's team put his fiance, Andrea Coutretsis, on the stand, she lied to protect him.
Fitzgerald indicted Coutretsis on perjury charges and threatened the mother of two with jail. She was warned that she could escape a prison cell only if Fawell turned on Ryan.
"You guys have my head in a vise," Fawell complained to prosecutors as they dangled leniency for his girlfriend. But in the end the pressure worked and Fawell flipped.
Reacting to Fitzgerald's hardball tactics earlier this month, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn wrote: "The image that comes to mind is not so much a head in vise as that famous 1973 National Lampoon cover, 'If You Don't Buy This Magazine, We'll Kill This Dog.'"
Zorn continued: "Were you or I to use such powerful leverage to get someone to testify on our behalf, it would be a crime . . . There's a grim amorality to the feds linking [Coutretsis'] prison sentence to [Fawell's] performance on the witness stand this month."
In 1998, when then-Independent Counsel Ken Starr was accused of threatening to indict Monica Lewinsky's mother to gain Monica's cooperation, the media went wild with outrage.
But now that Mr. Fitzgerald is employing the same tactics against Republicans, the national press has decided to look the other way.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/30/101014.shtml
Sunday, Oct. 30, 2005 10:02 a.m. EST
Patrick Fitzgerald Indicted 60 Republicans
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is said to be "non-partisan" and "apolitical" - but as U.S. attorney in Chicago, a job he continues to hold as he heads up the Leakgate probe, the targets of his investigations into political corruption have been overwhelmingly Republican.
The media is fond of noting that Fitzgerald, who rocked the Bush administration on Friday with the indictment of Lewis Libby, has indicted two aides to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley - a Democrat.
But reporters seldom note that Fitzgerald's biggest case prior to Leakgate is his ongoing corruption probe into former Illinois Republican Governor George Ryan, who happens to be on trial right now.
Fitzgerald indicted Ryan on corruption charges in December 2003, the same month he was tapped to probe Leakgate, in an investigation that saw more than 60 indictments of Ryan administration figures and political appointees.
For those keeping score on Mr. Fitzgerald's political targets, the count currently stands at 60-plus Republicans vs. 2 Democrats - not counting Mr. Libby.
One aspect of Fitzgerald's Chicago prosecution has rankled more than a few observers - his decision to indict the fiance of his star witness against Ryan.
Top Ryan aide Scott Fawell had repeatedly protested that he knew of nothing that would implicate Ryan in wrongdoing.
But Fawell was already under indictment by Fitzgerald on separate corruption charges. And when Fitzgerald's team put his fiance, Andrea Coutretsis, on the stand, she lied to protect him.
Fitzgerald indicted Coutretsis on perjury charges and threatened the mother of two with jail. She was warned that she could escape a prison cell only if Fawell turned on Ryan.
"You guys have my head in a vise," Fawell complained to prosecutors as they dangled leniency for his girlfriend. But in the end the pressure worked and Fawell flipped.
Reacting to Fitzgerald's hardball tactics earlier this month, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn wrote: "The image that comes to mind is not so much a head in vise as that famous 1973 National Lampoon cover, 'If You Don't Buy This Magazine, We'll Kill This Dog.'"
Zorn continued: "Were you or I to use such powerful leverage to get someone to testify on our behalf, it would be a crime . . . There's a grim amorality to the feds linking [Coutretsis'] prison sentence to [Fawell's] performance on the witness stand this month."
In 1998, when then-Independent Counsel Ken Starr was accused of threatening to indict Monica Lewinsky's mother to gain Monica's cooperation, the media went wild with outrage.
But now that Mr. Fitzgerald is employing the same tactics against Republicans, the national press has decided to look the other way.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/30/101014.shtml
QUOTE(davisął @ Oct 31 2005, 09:18 AM)
The rightwing's usual response to investigations of their own. Attack. Smear. Here it comes. This will make the Rush parrot happy.
Sunday, Oct. 30, 2005 10:02 a.m. EST
Patrick Fitzgerald Indicted 60 Republicans
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is said to be "non-partisan" and "apolitical" - but as U.S. attorney in Chicago, a job he continues to hold as he heads up the Leakgate probe, the targets of his investigations into political corruption have been overwhelmingly Republican.
The media is fond of noting that Fitzgerald, who rocked the Bush administration on Friday with the indictment of Lewis Libby, has indicted two aides to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley - a Democrat.
But reporters seldom note that Fitzgerald's biggest case prior to Leakgate is his ongoing corruption probe into former Illinois Republican Governor George Ryan, who happens to be on trial right now.
[b]Fitzgerald indicted Ryan on corruption charges in December 2003, the same month he was tapped to probe Leakgate, in an investigation that saw more than 60 indictments of Ryan administration figures and political appointees.
[right][snapback]144757[/snapback][/right]
Sunday, Oct. 30, 2005 10:02 a.m. EST
Patrick Fitzgerald Indicted 60 Republicans
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is said to be "non-partisan" and "apolitical" - but as U.S. attorney in Chicago, a job he continues to hold as he heads up the Leakgate probe, the targets of his investigations into political corruption have been overwhelmingly Republican.
The media is fond of noting that Fitzgerald, who rocked the Bush administration on Friday with the indictment of Lewis Libby, has indicted two aides to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley - a Democrat.
But reporters seldom note that Fitzgerald's biggest case prior to Leakgate is his ongoing corruption probe into former Illinois Republican Governor George Ryan, who happens to be on trial right now.
[b]Fitzgerald indicted Ryan on corruption charges in December 2003, the same month he was tapped to probe Leakgate, in an investigation that saw more than 60 indictments of Ryan administration figures and political appointees.
[right][snapback]144757[/snapback][/right]
That slew of 60 indictments began with a single indictment of a small fish. In that original, piddly indictment, Fitz referred to the role of an Official "A".
59 Indictments later, that Official "A" was indicted himself - the governor.
The Progressive Review
This list was compiled at the end of the Clinton administration.
Our Clinton Scandal Index
RECORDS SET
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.
Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3
CRIME STATS
- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122
SMALTZ INVESTIGATION
- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million
CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.
OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.
ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S
Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697
This list was compiled at the end of the Clinton administration.
Our Clinton Scandal Index
RECORDS SET
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.
Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3
CRIME STATS
- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122
SMALTZ INVESTIGATION
- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million
CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.
OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.
ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S
Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697
Welcome to 1999.
QUOTE(Bee @ Oct 31 2005, 09:46 AM)
Welcome to 1999.
[right][snapback]144772[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]144772[/snapback][/right]
It's what they have.
Speaking of ethics and values, Carol, let's talk about yours.
Last night, out of nowhere, you stuck up a photo of Churchill, the rabid advocate for Palestinians. Now, neither he nor the whole Isreal/Palestine mess was even under discussion, he has no supporters or defenders on this board...
So, could you enlighten me as to what ethic or value you were expressing in your choice to out of nowhere suddenly pull an old piece of excrement out of your pocket and smear it on the wall? Had the stench of sewer politics faded and you felt a sudden need to renew the fragrance?
Last night, out of nowhere, you stuck up a photo of Churchill, the rabid advocate for Palestinians. Now, neither he nor the whole Isreal/Palestine mess was even under discussion, he has no supporters or defenders on this board...
So, could you enlighten me as to what ethic or value you were expressing in your choice to out of nowhere suddenly pull an old piece of excrement out of your pocket and smear it on the wall? Had the stench of sewer politics faded and you felt a sudden need to renew the fragrance?
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Oct 31 2005, 09:47 AM)
Speaking of ethics and values, Carol, let's talk about yours.
Last night, out of nowhere, you stuck up a photo of Churchill, the rabid advocate for Palestinians. Now, neither he nor the whole Isreal/Palestine mess was even under discussion, he has no supporters or defenders on this board...
So, could you enlighten me as to what ethic or value you were expressing in your choice to out of nowhere suddenly pull an old piece of excrement out of your pocket and smear it on the wall? Had the stench of sewer politics faded and you felt a sudden need to renew the fragrance?
[right][snapback]144774[/snapback][/right]
Last night, out of nowhere, you stuck up a photo of Churchill, the rabid advocate for Palestinians. Now, neither he nor the whole Isreal/Palestine mess was even under discussion, he has no supporters or defenders on this board...
So, could you enlighten me as to what ethic or value you were expressing in your choice to out of nowhere suddenly pull an old piece of excrement out of your pocket and smear it on the wall? Had the stench of sewer politics faded and you felt a sudden need to renew the fragrance?
[right][snapback]144774[/snapback][/right]
What the hell are you talking about? I wasn't even on the board last night.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Oct 31 2005, 09:47 AM)
It's what they have.
[right][snapback]144773[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]144773[/snapback][/right]
It's all they have. There are no morals or values, that's for sure.
QUOTE(Carol @ Oct 31 2005, 08:59 AM)
What the hell are you talking about? I wasn't even on the board last night.
[right][snapback]144782[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]144782[/snapback][/right]
Last night, this morning, whenever. I notice you evaded the question of what sort of ethic or value you were expressing in making that post out of nowhere, for no apparent purpose except to toss some shit around.
It puzzles me why people of your political ilk so often do such things. Just, out of nowhere, without comment or apparent reason, fling something like that out. Is it just a think like chimps taking a notion to pick up a handful of their excrement at toss it at the crowd? No reason, it just entertains the chimp and they don't mind the smell?
QUOTE(Bee @ Oct 31 2005, 09:46 AM)
Welcome to 1999.
[right][snapback]144772[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]144772[/snapback][/right]
and the Demos haven't had a president since the Clintons corrupted any chance they had
parrot
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.