PDA

View Full Version : The plot thickens..................



Qtec
03-24-2007, 10:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Lead Gov't Tobacco Lawyer Quits
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1, 2005
________________________________________
(AP) The lead trial lawyer in the government's landmark lawsuit against the tobacco industry, including three North Carolina-based companies, has quit the case and left the Justice Department. The move comes at a particularly sensitive time when the companies and the department could still negotiate a settlement.

Sharon Eubanks, who had aggressively pursued the racketeering case against the tobacco industry, was withdrawing effective Thursday, the government said in a one-sentence filing in U.S. District Court.

Eubanks said her supervisors' failure to support her work on the tobacco case influenced her decision to retire after 22 years with the department.

Her withdrawal follows a stunning reversal in June in which the Justice Department disregarded the recommendations of its own witness, Dr. Michael Fiore, and reduced the amount it was demanding from the tobacco industry for smoking cessation programs to $10 billion. Fiore had proposed $130 billion.

After strong criticism from Democrats, the department is investigating whether political appointees inappropriately pressured the trial team to slash the proposed penalty against the companies.

"The political appointees to whom I report made this an easy decision," Eubanks told The Washington Post. She said her work on the tobacco case has been professionally rewarding but her politically appointed bosses "have been somewhat less than supportive of the team's efforts," the newspaper reported on Thursday.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said he has not gotten a response from the department on his request of nearly a month ago to be included in any settlement discussions between the government and the companies.

Eubanks' departure "should not serve as an excuse for secret negotiations that lead to a weak settlement," Myers said.

Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment on the reasons for Eubank's departure.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said the Justice Department's request for $10 billion was made on the merits of the case, independent of political considerations.





Prosecutor Says She Was Pressured On Case
WASHINGTON, March 23, 2007
________________________________________
(CBS) A career Justice Department lawyer not a political appointee, but a career prosecutor who had been at the department for two decades has come forward to say she wasn't fired, she quit a year and a half ago because high-level political appointees at Justice forced her to do what she didn't want to do: Go easy on the tobacco companies in a lawsuit that may yet cost those companies billions of dollars.

"They actually drafted for me for a position to take on a smoking-cessation remedy, which would reduce what the government had been seeking in the case from $130 billion to $10 billion, without any explanation," former federal prosecutor Sharon Eubanks tells CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer in an exclusive interview.

Eubanks was the lead lawyer when the government sued the tobacco companies for covering up the dangers of smoking. The case is currently on appeal, but it was the largest civil suit ever filed, and she says that when high-level political appointees at the Justice Department concluded she was about to win and force the big tobacco companies to lay out billions to help smokers break the habit, they stopped her.

She says they ordered a drastic cutback in the settlement she wanted, dictated her final argument and ordered her to read it, told her to drop her demand that key company officials be removed and ordered her to force key witnesses to change their stories.

"It was more what they didn't want them to say," Eubanks says of the witnesses' testimony.

Eubanks first told part of the story to The Washington Post, and it has already caused a furor at the capital. But what she finds odd is that despite the enormity of the case, she never discussed it with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Why not? "I think perhaps to be able to say, as he has said with the firings of the U.S. Attorneys, 'I didn't know what was going on.' Well, he need look no further than the mirror. He's responsible for that," Eubanks says.

Internal investigators at the Justice Department concluded nothing improper took place during the case. But Congress isn't satisfied and Eubanks is headed to Capitol Hill to tell her story.

<hr /></blockquote>


Q

pooltchr
03-24-2007, 04:43 PM
Maybe someone with a brain came to the conclusion that a $130 BILLION is the kind of money that only our government has to throw around. Seems to me like $10 BILLION is a rather significant amount of money. Maybe someone thought they would have a better chance of winning their case if the outrageous amount they were seeking was reduced.
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-24-2007, 09:02 PM
Bush, and friends, are always on the oink side, regardless of who has been hurt, lied to, or otherwise exploited.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-25-2007, 03:45 PM
Which plot are you referring to this time?
Also, why just a copy/paste without any of your own words?

eg8r

Bobbyrx
03-25-2007, 09:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Bush, and friends, are always on the oink side, regardless of who has been hurt, lied to, or otherwise exploited.
<font color="blue"> Speaking of oink why do House Democratic leaders want to add $24.6 billion in PORK to President Bush's $95 billion request for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq?

</font color>

Qtec
03-26-2007, 03:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Which plot are you referring to this time?
Also, why just a copy/paste without any of your own words?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I thought the point was self-evident. ie the Govt has consistently interfered in the judicial process for political reasons.
Even you can put two and two together, surely.

If it walks like a duck!
Q

Qtec
03-26-2007, 05:08 AM
Winning the case has nothing to do with the amount of the award. Actually, the Govt won the case and didn't get a cent!

Q web page (http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/doj/)

Gayle in MD
03-26-2007, 07:44 AM
Their statements have been that some of that pork, was left over business from the Republican led majority, but never completed. My own opinion, is that Pelosi was adding a few, which would buy some Republican support for doing right by our troops, who are being slaughtered daily in a militarily un-winnable war, by an Administration which has shown absolutely no concern for giving them what they need to fight it properly, nor to adhere to the Army/Navy/Marine standards for reasonable treatment of our armed forces.

IMO, if it takes some pork, to end the fiasco created by the incompetent Bush administration, the cost of the pork, doesn't light a candle to the cost of this war, not only in treasure, and blood, but in misplaced billions, incompetently lost, vanished, never recovered, who knows where it may be, no one. Most estimates though, indicate that the many billions lost through the incompetence of the Neocon, civilian led, prosecution of this war, were likely used to arm the very enemy which is slaughtering Americans, Iraqi insrugents, and Saddam loyalists.

Amazing how righties are so concerned about pork, which is actually going to be spent to help American farmers, Katrina victims, flood victims, business and otherwise, is of such great concern, but over eight billion missing in Iraq, and 10 billion a month, fighting a militarily unwinnable war, supposedly to benefit the very people who kill our troops, is A-OK.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-26-2007, 12:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I thought the point was self-evident. ie the Govt has consistently interfered in the judicial process for political reasons.
Even you can put two and two together, surely <hr /></blockquote> About time we see some text from your own mind. Nothing too groundbreaking and more of the same ole left wing line we have been hearing for years.

eg8r

eg8r
03-26-2007, 12:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, if it takes some pork, to end the fiasco created by the incompetent Bush administration,<hr /></blockquote> No need to read any further. Here is more proof that you are willing to turn your head to the shortcomings of a politician if it is coming from a guy on your side. What a joke. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Keep it coming this is great.

eg8r

Bobbyrx
03-26-2007, 04:11 PM
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON Three months after promising to curtail spending on pet legislative projects, House Democrats have salted the Iraq emergency spending bill with $3.7 billion for farm interests that <font color="blue"> make significant donations to Democrats.
</font color>

Gayle in MD
03-26-2007, 04:24 PM
Slanted story, they make donations to republicans, too. He also said this... [ QUOTE ]
Last year, the Republican-controlled Congress added $4 billion in farm aid to a $97 billion emergency Iraq bill, but the Bush administration negotiated to cut the farm aid to $400 million.

<hr /></blockquote>

Go read the bill on www.C-Span.org (http://www.C-Span.org)

You will find that it provides for the implementation of safeguards from the 9/11 commission, for our borders, trains and ports, which the Republican led Congress, and Bush, failed to implement, even after getting an F. on Homeland Security.
Although Bush consistantly tells us how dangerous terrorists are, usually trying to link it to the civil war in Iraq, he has done nothing to protect us here. The bill actually designated even more money for our troops, than Bush asked for. Money for Vets, for their families, care givers, and up-grades at the Vet Hospitals. Disaster relief for farmers, and Katrina victims. It's the best damn bill I've read in six years. We'll be spending money to prevent our troops from being caught in a civil war. What else could make more sense, than helping our own people, and our troops, instead of Iraqis who want to kill us? Read the bill for yourself, instead of some partisan version, probably from a right wing reporter. He is one who used to brag about how things were getting better in Iraq, until he had to write this...

http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/001174.php

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
03-26-2007, 04:42 PM
Ed, I don't understand your post....and your problems with Q's post.
Labels aside, he's quoting from an article about a case that I
hadn't read about....and what's wrong with adding one's comments about it?
I didn't associate a left Vs right plot in the story????
Maybe you could explain what you find wrong in the story.
Is she lying?....or?
Or maybe you just don't like the truth, when it seems to go against your belief system??
Well, that's what the congressional hearings are about....they'll try to find out the facts......
AND, how many more hearings will it take for you to realize....that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark"?

wolfdancer
03-26-2007, 05:46 PM
Quack, quack!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Q, I'm not sure how this got to be a left wing plot....from the charges she has made....I think it merits an investigation.
If this was Japan, Bush and his cabinet would all be drinking the kool-aid about now....it would be the honorable thing to do.....

eg8r
03-26-2007, 06:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Labels aside, he's quoting from an article about a case that I
hadn't read about....and what's wrong with adding one's comments about it?
<hr /></blockquote> That was the point...He never had any comments on the intial post that I commented on. The only thing he said was "The plot thickens..."

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't associate a left Vs right plot in the story????
<hr /></blockquote> I believe your haste to defend Q has led to you not understanding what is happening. I never associated the quoted text as left or right, I associated Q's remarks as left wing. Whether or not you can see the bias in it is not my problem, I am just here to point it out.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you could explain what you find wrong in the story.
<hr /></blockquote> Once again, a simple lesson in following along will clear this up for you.

[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe you just don't like the truth <hr /></blockquote> Here we go again, if the left says it then it must be the truth, blah blah blah.

eg8r

eg8r
03-26-2007, 07:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Slanted story, they make donations to republicans, too. <hr /></blockquote> OMG, could you be any more thick-headed? Just because they make donations to the Reps does not slant Bobby's remarks or the quoted text one single bit. The point is that you make it sound like the Reps are the only ones out there with pork barrel spending. Bobby is pointing out that the Dems are just as bad. You are finding yourself in an embarrassing position to have to admit the left is just as bad and you cannot handle it. You think if you state it was slanted someone might believe you, however in the end the truth is that your beloved leftist politicians are proving you to be dishonest with your facade of the state of the left.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-26-2007, 07:04 PM
Right, you're just so brilliant, I am awed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

zzzzzzzzzzz /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Qtec
03-26-2007, 07:38 PM
Thanks for the support wolf but Ed NEVER gets it!
Clinton and his BJ, now THAT was an issue of the utmost importance, according to Ed.
OTOH, the lack of WMDs, torture,outing US CIA agents and now firing independant attorneys because they won't do what they [ politicians]want, are all non-issues!

The plot thickens even more!

[ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Justice Department official will refuse to answer questions during a Senate committee hearing on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself, her lawyer said Monday.

In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling's lawyer said she would not testify because senators have already decided that wrongdoing occurred.

"The public record is clear that certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have already reached conclusions about the matter under investigation and the veracity of the testimony provided by the Justice Department to date," John Dowd, Goodling's lawyer, said in a letter to the committee's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.

The letter said Goodling learned that a senior Justice Department official blamed her and other Justice Department officials for any misleading statements he had made to one of the Democratic senators who has pushed for answers about the firings, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.

Goodling is a senior counsel and White House liaison to Gonzales. She is taking a leave of absence from the department.

The committee has subpoenaed Goodling to testify Thursday. Democratic and Republican senators have raised questions about the firings, which e-mail released by the Justice Department suggests may have been done for political reasons.

Democrats said they continue to want Goodling to testify.

"It is disappointing that Ms. Goodling has decided to withhold her important testimony from the committee as it pursues its investigation into this matter, but everybody has the constitutional right not to incriminate themselves with regard to criminal conduct," Leahy said in a written statement. "The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath." <hr /></blockquote>

The truth will out.

Q

Gayle in MD
03-26-2007, 07:47 PM
LOL...I should have stuck with this thread, /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif, sorry. I just made a new post on this...Thanks for this link, though.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
03-26-2007, 07:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
WALLACE: "Do you see some connection between your experience and what happened with the US attorneys?"

EUBANKS: 'Yes. I don't serve at the pleasure of the President and most of the people who work at the Department don't, but they're being interfered with every day in their work."

The timing of this revelation is quite staggering given the purge and the emerging picture of rampant politicization of the Justice Department by the Bush administration. As Ms. Eubanks testifies, politicization is an "every day" occurence under Bush rule. What sets America apart from most other countries is that we pride ourselves (or at least used to) on the rule of law, the notion that no one is above the law. As the purge and tobacco case makes abundantly clear, that principle has been corrupted in favor of political considerations and protection. I think we need to ask ourselves where else has this happened? In what other cases have prosecutors been pressured? Which USAs "played ball" and misused their offices for political reasons? It's the height of naivety to assume that these are isolated instances and not part of a bigger widespread problem. <hr /></blockquote>

Intimidation is the standard MO for this Admin.
They have a lot to answer for.

Q .....

Bobbyrx
03-28-2007, 04:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Slanted story, they make donations to republicans, too. <font color="blue"> That's just the POINT....they ALL do it...and it's still wrong </font color> He also said this... &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Last year, the Republican-controlled Congress added $4 billion in farm aid to a $97 billion emergency Iraq bill, but the Bush administration negotiated to cut the farm aid to $400 million.

<hr /></blockquote>

Go read the bill on C-Span.org <font color="blue"> make note to wife.....if you ever catch me on C-Span.org...shoot me </font color>

You will find that it provides for the implementation of safeguards from the 9/11 commission, for our borders, trains and ports, which the Republican led Congress, and Bush, failed to implement, even after getting an F. on Homeland Security.
Although Bush consistantly tells us how dangerous terrorists are, usually trying to link it to the civil war in Iraq, he has done nothing to protect us here. The bill actually designated even more money for our troops, than Bush asked for. Money for Vets, for their families, care givers, and up-grades at the Vet Hospitals. Disaster relief for farmers, and Katrina victims. It's the best damn bill I've read in six years. We'll be spending money to prevent our troops from being caught in a civil war. What else could make more sense, than helping our own people, and our troops, instead of Iraqis who want to kill us? Read the bill for yourself, <font color="blue"> I have....it's still pork and it's still buying votes and it was Dems trying to buy votes from other Dems. Pork is always a good thing when it's for something you like but the bill was not about any of the stuff that was attached to it. Either vote to fund the troops or don't </font color> instead of some partisan version, <font color="blue">yes the right wing USA Today </font color> probably from a right wing reporter. He is one who used to brag about how things were getting better in Iraq, until he had to write this... <font color="blue">So it's only ok if you shoot the messenger but far be it from anyone to question a post from Huffington or MoveOn.org those bastions of the main stream </font color>

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 07:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
make note to wife.....if you ever catch me on C-Span.org...shoot me

<hr /></blockquote>
LMAO, that's probably the most ridiculous of any of your many ridiculous posts!


FYI, I don't quote posts from Huffingtonpost, nor do I quote opinion articles, other than this once, to give a contrast to your own partisan posts. I usually use Huffingtonpost as a link to Newspaper articles.

But, since you are so concerned about spending, how do you suggest that we go about paying off the $8,841,089,074,666.00 that bush, and the Republicans have run up in National Debt, 75% of which they borrowed from foriegn countries, more than all previous 42 president's combined, before him?

You righties have a lot of nerve making partisan complaints about spending! LMAO! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 07:42 AM
On January 13, the San Diego Union-Tribune quoted Dan Dzwilewski, head of FBI's San Diego office, as saying Lam was crucial to ongoing investigations. "I guarantee politics is involved," he was quoted saying.

Feinstein said her chief counsel had called the FBI's San Diego office to verify the accuracy of the story. She said the office confirmed it was true "but they also said they'd been warned to say no more."



Mueller said he had heard about the article and followed up.

"Well, my understanding is that our chief out there believes he was misquoted (and) ... that our investigations were continuing, without any diminishment," he said.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, noted that among the shifting reasons given for firing prosecutors was failure to energetically pursue voter-fraud investigations.

Schumer asked Mueller if he was aware of any FBI voter-fraud probe that should have resulted in an indictment but did not.

"Not to my knowledge," the FBI director replied.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&amp;storyid=2007-03-27T215910Z_01_N27218781_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-PROSECUTORS.xml

Bobbyrx
03-28-2007, 08:54 AM
I'm talking about the practice of tacking on pork to other bills to buy votes. As I said, both parties do it all the time, and it is wrong. If the vote is for money for the troops, vote on it as is. If it's for peanut storage facilities, vote on peanut storage facilities. That way we can at least know what these people are actually for and against. They can't say "I was against that peanut storage facility but I had to vote for it to fund the troops"

and the C-Span thing was just a joke

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 09:49 AM
Well good, I'm glad you appreciate C-Span.

I also agree basically with you wish for clean bills. In this case, however, (getting our people out of Iraq) any way that Democrats and their few Republican supporters for ending our involvement there, holding this administration accountable, holding the Iraqi Government accountable, and force this administration to treat our troops with dignity, caring and honor, IMO, a little pork is of little concern to me given the overall picture.

compared to the compounding interest on the debt George Bush has run up, and given that most of the so called Pork, is for things we should have done long ago to help our troops, their families, secur our country, and assist our citizens who need money for emergency aid, these all all things which should have been done long ago.

Have you actually read the bill? Republicans have a way of announcing aid for various improvments, and then cutting the funding, or not putting it through at all. No child left behind is a good example of that. Faith Based billions, never got to any poor people, hence, David Quo, assistant Director in the Office of Faith Based Innitiatives in the White House, resigned, and wrote a book about how this administration uses the religion to raise money, and then steals the money for themselves, all the while making fun of them, calling them kooks, and worse.

These people in the White House are liars, with no integrity, period. If you would study them, you would surely find that to be true.

jAre Democrats perfect, NO, but they've never put us in a mess like this one.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-28-2007, 10:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You righties have a lot of nerve making partisan complaints about spending! LMAO! <hr /></blockquote> Now, to quote a nut again... [ QUOTE ]
LMAO, that's probably the most ridiculous of any of your many ridiculous posts!
<hr /></blockquote> You are so thick-headed to continue to act like those of us here on this board stand behind W's negligent spending. We were the first on the board to mention it, yet you purposefully sidestep that fact and continue to act like we approve of his spending.

The other part that makes your post ridiculous is the fact that you are incapable of understanding what is being ridiculed. Pelosi and the rest of the Dems voted in stated they would do the right thing and they would eliminate the pork barrell spending. Well, they sure lied to us didn't they. They are continuing business as usual. You are just to thick-headed to admit it. We are not giving the Reps a free ride for previously adding pork to the bills, we are just noting that the Dems are equally at fault.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 12:09 PM
The Dems have instituted pay-go. It's Bush, and the Republicans who won't sign onto to it.

You weren't the first to remark about Bush, and the spend happy Republicans. Try to tell the truth once and a while.

Another moot point from the boy genius.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Qtec
03-29-2007, 01:32 PM
The plot thickens even more!

[ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General Albert Gonzales was wrong when he said he was not involved in discussions about the firings of U.S. attorneys, his former top aide testified Thursday.

Former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson told senators his boss took part in the process from early 2005, well before the eight prosecutors were dismissed in 2006.

Gonzales "and I had discussions about it during the thinking phase of the process," Sampson testified. "Then after the sort of more final phase of the process in the fall of 2006 began, we discussed it." (Watch Sampson defend the attorney firings Video)

The testimony appeared to contradict Gonzales statements during a March 13 news conference. "So far as I knew, my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers," Gonzales said. He said he was "not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."

New York Sen. Charles Schumer, one of the panel's leading Democrats in the investigation, said, "the credibility of the attorney general on this issue has been more or less shattered."

Sampson told the committee the attorney general asked him "to make sure that the process was appropriate, that I was consulting with the deputy attorney general and others in developing the list. And then ultimately he approved both the list and the notion of going forward and asking for these resignations."

Sampson also testified that Gonzales attended a meeting about the firings on November 27, 2006, which was 10 days before seven of the attorneys were dismissed.

Gonzales also was wrong, Sampson told senators, when the attorney general said other Justice Department officials had not been briefed about the firings when they appeared before Congress.

In addition, Sampson testified that he had no knowledge that the firings were connected to ongoing corruption cases. "To my knowledge no U.S. attorney was asked to resign for the purpose of influencing a particular case for a particular reason," Sampson said.

The proceedings were interrupted when Republicans objected that the hearing was in violation of rules that bar hearings while the full Senate is in session.

GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah later said the delay was the result of a misunderstanding, but Sen. Leahy said he had never heard of such a misunderstanding since he was elected to the Senate in 1974.

Earlier, during his opening statement, Sampson said the decision about the firings were "properly made but poorly explained." He said the process -- which has led to a firestorm on Capitol Hill and a standoff over the testimony of White House aides -- was "badly mishandled."

"This is a benign rather than sinister story, and I know that some may be indisposed to accept it," Sampson said. "But it is the truth as I observed and experienced it." (Read how Gonzales' future hangs in the balance as Sampson testifiesexternal link)

Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy accused the Bush administration of "a series of shifting explanations, excuses, lack of accountability or even acknowledgment of the seriousness of this matter."

Leahy said information given to Congress has been contradicted by the sworn testimony of Justice Department attorneys.

If there is a "mixing of partisan political goals into federal law enforcement, then we have a situation that is highly improper," said the Vermont Democrat. <hr /></blockquote>

Could this be...........................attorneygate! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Bye bye Gonzales.......worm.

Q

pooltchr
03-29-2007, 05:39 PM
This whole issue has to be the biggest non-issue I have seen in years. 8 AG's get fired, and everyone gets their panties in a wad. 12 million illegal ailen invaders are occupying out country, and the government welcomes them with open arms!
In 18 months, the current administration will be gone, the 8 AG's will still be gone, and those that weren't fired now, will probably be looking for work when the new administration takes office. And the 12 million illegal ailen invaders will still be here along with many more of their friends and families, demanding drivers licenses, protection from the EEOC, free health care, credit cards, and a higher minimum wage. And you know what? They will probably get it all!!!!
While the Dems try to get the Republicans, and vice-versa, the illegal ailen invaders will be getting all of us!
5 years from now, 8 fired AG's will be forgotten...and our country will be quickly becoming someone else's country.
The bickering that takes place around here sometimes amazes me. Forget the petty, trivial, insignificant BS. There is a crisis building here that, if gone unchecked, will render all these other issues irrelivent!
Steve

Qtec
03-30-2007, 03:29 AM
The whole issue is WHY were they fired.
WHY , if they have not done anything wrong, would Gonzales lie about it, and a puplic servant take the Fifth and refuse to testify.
Alarm bells should be ringing.
IMO this goes deeper. eg if an attorney was fired because he/she refused to drop an investigation into a Republican senator.......that would be obstruction of justice - a crime!

Immigration is another issue.

Q

Gayle in MD
03-30-2007, 08:28 AM
Steve,
I must say, this post of yours has a great deal of truth. I was hoping you might acknowledge who it was that gave them amnesty, sending the signal that if they could get here, we'd surly make them all citizens, and forgive them for being here illegally, back in the eighties.

And also, who in the oval office, presently, has refused to do anything other than send the same wrong signal. Both parties are responsible, but Reagan made a horrific mistake, and we're all paying the price for it now.

Also, our laws, are the core of our democracy, and the most important basis for a peaceful society. Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes failed to abide by our laws. Hence, the first thing Bush Jr did when he got into office was to deep six all the data.

[ QUOTE ]
The bickering that takes place around here sometimes amazes me. Forget the petty, trivial, insignificant BS. There is a crisis building here that, if gone unchecked, will render all these other issues irrelivent!
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">I, too, wish we could have more reasonable discussion. I'm about to put Ed back ontotal ignore. it's the only way I know of to avoid being part of the bickering, since he is so nasty, and ugly, I tend to fall into it myself. Let's you and I try to set the example for him. </font color>

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
03-30-2007, 11:24 AM
" since he is so nasty, and ugly"

Gayle, I knew Ed was nasty.....but didn't know he was ugly as well. you've seen some photos?
Well, let's hope the new baby's looks, favors his Mom's side of the family..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
I was watching the hearings on this firing fiasco...can't the right do anything right?
In the two years of deciding which Attorney's to fire....not one file was kept?????....and the decision to fire these experienced trial lawyers was made by lawyers with no, or very little trial experience.
It also seems that the standard reply to questions is "I don't remember, Senator"
And topping the "top ten" questions of the day..."in the long history of the DOJ....has there ever been a staff Attorney, that invoked the 5th amendment....and was kept on the staff?".......
It now doesn't matter if their was an attempt to bring the Justice Dep't under direct control of the White House.....the damage has been done

Gayle in MD
03-30-2007, 12:57 PM
Truer words were never spoken. The big three in the White House, sly, slick and wicked, know how to set up their protective barriers, pulling the strings from behind closed doors, with a line up of schmucks between themselves, and the witness stand. It's a joke. Anything that Rove is involved in, is dirty work, of the worst kind.

Too bad the left is without a hell bent, obsessed, dirt digger, like Kenneth Starr, who will stop at nothing, including voyeuristic, deviant, perversion, and stoop to the depths of poor taste and the politics of personal destruction, without conscience, praying as he goes of course, on his heinous path, in the interest of destroying people's lives for the sake of the party, and the Religious right, /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif LMAO.

Interesting, how the testamony always halts, just one aide or advisor down the ladder, before Rove, Cheney and Bush's office doors, this time at the feet of the WH/DOJ liaison, a convenient insulation, as the blame drifts safely downward to their advisor, liaison or Aid in crime.

As the juror, who had heard all the evidence in the Libby trial, asked, "Where are the rest of these guys? Rove and ..." I can assure you, he knew who broke the law, as did Patrick Fitzgerald.

This is the first time ever that a Department Of Justice employee has taken the fifth, to avoid being caught in a crime. They should lock her up and throw away the key. She's another one, from the pious, religious right.

Reagan couldn't remember anything either. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If only there was a way to interest Bush in just staying in his office, and jerking off on the dresses of a few young WH aides, the for the next eighteen months! But then, his machismo is all rehearsed, like his punk pretend big guy walk, with arms flung wide, he probably doesn't have the dextarity and coordination to pull it off, excuse the pun. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif All he needs is a pack of Marlboros, folded up in his T.Shirt sleave, and a big tabackie slug in his mouth, to complete the picture.

Instead, the country is subject to more of his non stop F.ups!

I'll bet the day he leaves office, there will be some big time celebrations in this country. I know of several groups, bi- partisan, btw, who are planning to lay messages in certain fields for him to see as he makes his final flight away from the sight of his own devastating War On America, on our next Inaugural Day. Some will say, "Good-by and GO **** ******** *******."

Peace be with you friend... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Love,
Gayle

eg8r
03-30-2007, 01:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'll bet the day he leaves office, there will be some big time celebrations in this country. <hr /></blockquote> The terrorists will be celebrating also.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-30-2007, 02:04 PM
I don't think so, no one has accomodated them like Bush has. Terror is their game, and fear is Bush's method for abuse of power, and lyig to the Nation. Their in the same business. And Bush, is their biggest sponser, he gives them free advertising for their cause, everytime he quotes them.

Your such a duntz...anyway, poof, your back on total ignore, so go away kid, ya botha me.

Gayle in Md....

pooltchr
03-30-2007, 07:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Steve,
I was hoping you might acknowledge who it was that gave them amnesty, sending the signal that if they could get here, we'd surly make them all citizens, and forgive them for being here illegally, back in the eighties.
Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

I know what you are talking about, but that is old news. The big three that concern me on this issue today are GW, McCain, and Nancy. And I suspect HC will be right in there on the same side, given the opportunity.
We should be raising Pure-T-Hell over the immigration fiasco.
The question of how to send 12 million illegals home doesn't cut it. It's like the old question, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Every time an illegal alien invader comes in contact with our court system, law enforcement, or government agencies of any type, that should be the last time we see their sorry ass here.
On a somewhat related note, I heard last night that the company that is working to build the fence along the southwest boarder was discovered to be using illegal alien invaders to work on the project. Something tells me that this is one job that they shouldn't have any problem finding American workers to fill!!!!!!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-31-2007, 07:57 AM
Well, this is another marker day, when our opinions are the same. And while I also agree that there seems to be non partisan failure to abide by our laws, and send them back whenever possible, I believe that this is yet another circumstance when successful diplomacy, between Mexico, and the United States, along with international pressure on the Mexican government, along with more realistic drug laws, could greatly improve the problem.

I've always said, if we were going to occupy, and bring democracy to any country, it should have been Mexico. We should have taken them over long long ago. If we had, they'd have a decent place to live their lives, and access to the American Dream, without having to risk their lives and live a life of hiding, without going anywhere. Instead, because of our antiquated drug laws, they take billions in drug money, out of our economy every year, contribute creatly to crimes of all sorts, drive down American wages, take our jobs, and all the while, we're paying for their kids. Children of illegals, should not be on welfare of any kind, nor should they be allowed to utilize our educational system. When people come here illegally, their kids should not automatically be citizens, just because they were born here.

I do think though, that the wave of illegals, have been directly connected to Reagan's policies. He was the first to completely ignore and defuse American Law on the issue of illegal aliens. The great increase of illegals began right after his amnesty program. Immediately, the wave began. I blame Republicans, and Democrats, equally for failing to enforce the law. I blame Reagan, for making the problem much worse, and taking it from a managable problem, with easy solutions, to a colosal problem. Reminds me of Bush's terrorist policies, also. Everything he has done, has made everything much worse, and worse, he won't stop doing what will obviously never lead to success. Our troops are dying, due to his stubborn, arrogant, refusal to take his medicine for F***ing up, and then trying to stretch out the F.-up in order to leave his the wake of his incompetence, to the next president, thereby blurring the lines of accountability, and his fault for putting our country in the middle of a mess for which there are no good solutions. The terrorists, and Iran, will be disheartened to see him leave office. He's given them everything they hoped for, played right into their hands.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-31-2007, 08:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Your such a duntz... <hr /></blockquote> Don't be so foolish, read your post again and see who is the dunce.

Calling someone a dunce and you cannot even spell it, LOL, classic. Take another med and go to sleep, maybe tomorrow someone will believe your crap.

eg8r

HALHOULE
10-11-2007, 01:16 AM
WHAT HAS ALL THIS TO DO WITH POOL ???? TAKE IT SOMWHERE ELSE.