PDA

View Full Version : This is too much



Qtec
07-25-2010, 05:37 AM
link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/alberto-gonzales-i-feel-angry-i-had-go-thr)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, here's what you get when you allow the crimes of the Bush administration to go unpunished. Alberto Gonzales coming on the T.V. playing the aggrieved victim card. As Jon explained the other day...

Bush Lawyers Escape Justice. Again.:

On Wednesday, prosecutor Nora Dannehy announced she would bring no charges against Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Monica Goodling or any of the key players behind the purge of 9 U.S. attorneys. That scandal, part of a larger effort to target Democratic politicians and suppress Democratic voter turnout, will go unpunished despite the key roles of Rove and Miers, and the apparent perjury of former Attorney General Gonzales. Read on...

Mary over at EmptyWheel's place has more on the letter sent to John Conyers. Final Jeopardy Answer: Something That Doesn’t Obstruct or Impede Justice:

The investigation (not of the U. S. Attorney firings despite misleading headlines) into the Iglesias firing is done. bmaz is ready to change his name to Carnac and Holder’s Department of Justice has shot off a letter-ary masterpiece to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC). As per Carnac’s bmaz’s predictions, no charges.

What bmaz could not have predicted, but did link to in his post, is the actual content of the letter sent to Conyers. I don’t think anyone would have predicted the cavalier way in which Holder’s DOJ reaches its seemingly predetermined decision, while providing a roadmap to other legislators who’d also like to get a prosecutor fired for political convenience. Dannehy and Holder explain to Members of Congress – if a Federal prosecutor isn’t filing or refraining from filing the cases you want, feel free to covertly conspire to get him fired. As long as you don’t make any misguided attempt to “influence” him before you get him fired, you’re good to go. Oh, and btw, phone calls to him at home to fume over his handling – not to worry, those doesn’t count as an attempt to influence.

Stripped and shorn, Holder and Dannehy have said –

1. We aren’t gonna investigate anything but Iglesias and we aren’t saying why: “The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias.”

WHAT EVIDENCE? They freakin didn’t expand the scope of the investigation to see what evidence there was, then they decide, oh well, we don’t have any of the evidence we didn’t look for so we shouldn’t look for it since we don’t have it … whatever.

2. Hey, yeah, Domenici DID make a contact to smack on Iglesias about the handling of a matter currently in front of the USA’s office but: “The evidence about the call developed in the course of Ms. Dannehy’s investigation, however, was insufficient to establish an attempt to pressure Mr. Iglesias to accelerate his charging decisions.”

So similar to the lack of intent to torture – I mean, if Domenici in good faith thought he was just gathering intel on the status of political prosecutions … um, let’s move on.

Read on... </div></div>

Lets not forget.

amnesia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArwXQFMF9qI&feature=channel)

I don't recall (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIgbJSrIvWc)

Q

pooltchr
07-25-2010, 06:58 AM
Let me explain how things work in our system.
Prosecuters are paid to get convictions. That is their job. So, if they don't believe they have enough evidence for a conviction, they usually don't bring charges.

So, it is not surprising at all that a prosecuter who says they don't have enough evidence, would choose not to bring charges up.

It's all part of that troublesom innocent until proven guilty thing that seems to escape you.

Steve

LWW
07-25-2010, 08:21 AM
Your differences Steve are that you believe in a republic ... a nation of laws ... while our leftist members believe in a thugocracy where the accusations of the party are in and of themselves a conviction of guilt.

LWW

Chopstick
07-25-2010, 09:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bush Lawyers Escape Justice. Again.: </div></div>

Bush lawyers proven innocent. Again:

and by a Democrat run administration.

Qtec
07-25-2010, 08:37 PM
They weren't proven innocent.

Common sense.

If everything was legal and above board, why couldn't Gonzales answer a simple question? Why was he so evasive?

Why did Rove refuse to give evidence?

Q

pooltchr
07-25-2010, 10:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They weren't proven innocent.

Common sense.

If everything was legal and above board, why couldn't Gonzales answer a simple question? Why was he so evasive?

Why did Rove refuse to give evidence?

Q </div></div>

If there is no evidence to prove guilt, anyone in this country is considered innocent. It's a novel idea that most of us agree is the cornerstone of our justice system.

Steve

LWW
07-26-2010, 04:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They weren't proven innocent.

Common sense.

If everything was legal and above board, why couldn't Gonzales answer a simple question? Why was he so evasive?

Why did Rove refuse to give evidence?

Q </div></div>

Because it was an obvious partisan witch hunt.

The prior partisan witch hunt was to find out who didn't out a secretary who wasn't a covert agent long after the prosecutor knew who they were looking for had came forward and that the investigation was a trip to nowhere.

Nonetheless a very minor error in testimony led to a man going to prison for the sole purpose of sating the bloodlust of the moonbat left in America.

We have a constitution in this country, and some of us still believe in it.

LWW

eg8r
07-26-2010, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On Wednesday, prosecutor Nora Dannehy announced she would bring no charges against Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Monica Goodling or any of the key players behind the purge of 9 U.S. attorneys.</div></div>This is because they did nothing wrong or unprecedented.

eg8r

eg8r
07-26-2010, 09:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If everything was legal and above board, why couldn't Gonzales answer a simple question? Why was he so evasive?

Why did Rove refuse to give evidence?</div></div>Provide evidence that he did nothing wrong? What is the point? If you can't prove they did anything wrong then there is no reason to move forward.

eg8r

pooltchr
07-26-2010, 11:00 AM
It is impossible to prove a negative. You can not prove that someone did not do something, only that they did do something.

You can not prove that unicorns do not exist, but if you find one, you can prove that they do exist.

That is the basis for innocent until proven guilty.

Steve

eg8r
07-26-2010, 11:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is impossible to prove a negative. You can not prove that someone did not do something, only that they did do something.
</div></div>It is quite easy to prove someone did not do something. I want to prove I did not eat lunch at 11:30 today...all I have to do provide you with video of me writing code at that time with no food in site. By proving I was busy at my computer I am easily able to prove I was not out eating lunch. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

pooltchr
07-26-2010, 11:51 AM
That would be proof of what you DID do. It would be circumstantial evidence of what you didn't do.

Steve

LWW
07-26-2010, 12:47 PM
The video could be falsely time stamped.

You may present a compelling case, but fall short of proof.

LWW

Chopstick
07-26-2010, 01:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is impossible to prove a negative. You can not prove that someone did not do something, only that they did do something.
</div></div>It is quite easy to prove someone did not do something. I want to prove I did not eat lunch at 11:30 today...all I have to do provide you with video of me writing code at that time with no food in site. By proving I was busy at my computer I am easily able to prove I was not out eating lunch. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

Is that the video you loop through the cameras at work while you are across the street at Hooters? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

eg8r
07-26-2010, 01:25 PM
LOL, come on now you can't give away the secrets. Actually they have a pool hall over there also which has free pool if you buy lunch. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
07-26-2010, 01:25 PM
Yep it could have a false time stamp. Darn you got me. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

LWW
07-26-2010, 01:28 PM
That's why "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" is the legal standard. Nothing can be proven beyond all doubt.

LWW