PDA

View Full Version : Update on the outlaw regime!



LWW
02-24-2011, 05:34 AM
Dear leader has decided to place himself as supreme interpreter of the COTUS in a move which de facto voids the US judicial system.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has asked his Justice Department to stop defending it in court, the administration announced today. </div></div>

And, sadly, I have no doubt the Obamanation will defend THIS (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260494/breaking-obama-administration-declares-doma-unconstitutional-wont-defend-it-court-dani).

LWW

pooltchr
02-24-2011, 08:17 AM
Obama knows best. He doesn't need 9 Justices to determine what is constitutional and what is not. He is omnipotent!

Steve

Soflasnapper
02-25-2011, 05:08 PM
in a move which de facto voids the US judicial system.

No it doesn't.

You must have meant 'in a move which de facto voids the US <u>legislative-law</u> system.' For this has nothing to do with the courts deciding questions of Constitutionality. The Constitutionality of DOMA is in question before the courts at this time. It has to do with whether the DOJ will file briefs in those courts defending this statute's constitutionality. If DOJ will not, these arguments will still be made in amicus curiae briefings, and/or by the judges themselves in their deliberations.

Moreover, there is this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.

As you know, the Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government. However, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because the Department does not consider every plausible argument to be a “reasonable” one. “[D]ifferent cases can raise very different issues with respect to statutes of doubtful constitutional validity,” and thus there are “a variety of factors that bear on whether the Department will defend the constitutionality of a statute.” Letter to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch from Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois at 7 (Mar. 22, 1996). This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute</div></div>

That is a considerable distance from your claimed result of 'void[ing] the US judicial system.

Not only is the executive branch abiding by DOMA, but the issue has ripened in current court cases, for the courts' decision(s) on this question.

LWW
02-25-2011, 05:23 PM
Yes it does, the USAG has deemed the law unconstitutional.

Might I suggest a remedial reading class?

LWW

pooltchr
02-25-2011, 05:51 PM
Are you suggesting that it is ok for a POTUS to determine on his own, which laws he thinks are constitutional and which ones aren't???????????????????

I always thought that was the job of the SCOTUS.

I think Obama's oath said something about upholding the laws of the country...not arbitrarily deciding which laws are worthy of upholding.

Steve

Soflasnapper
02-25-2011, 06:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you suggesting that it is ok for a POTUS to determine on his own, which laws he thinks are constitutional and which ones aren't???????????????????

I always thought that was the job of the SCOTUS.

I think Obama's oath said something about upholding the laws of the country...not arbitrarily deciding which laws are worthy of upholding.

Steve </div></div>

Are you suggesting that it is ok for a POTUS to determine on his own, which laws he thinks are constitutional and which ones aren't???????????????????

It's part of his job, and among the reasons he has a veto power. YES, OF COURSE, he should use his informed judgment to veto bills that are unConstitutional, in his opinion, rather than pass them into law by his signature.

That's what Clinton should have done with DOMA originally, and he probably would have, except it passed by veto-proof margins AND was a culture-war hot button issue, so he ducked his responsibility (and probably wouldn't have prevailed anyway).

Same with George W. and McCain/Feingold. W was convinced it was unConstitutional, but decided he'd sign it anyway because he thought the SCOTUS would eventually strike it down.

Per AG Holder's written advice, Obama WILL continue to enforce this law pending judicial or legislative overturning it-- it's just that he will no longer cause his Solicitor General at the SCOTUS, or other DOJ US attorneys at lower levels, to DEFEND the law from lawsuits as to its constitutionality.

Soflasnapper
02-25-2011, 06:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you suggesting that it is ok for a POTUS to determine on his own, which laws he thinks are constitutional and which ones aren't???????????????????

I always thought that was the job of the SCOTUS.

</div></div>

Hmmm. Some here thought it was the job of federal judges, whose decisions are thought to be binding on the executive branch even though not final. At least this is an upgraded opinion.

pooltchr
02-25-2011, 07:41 PM
Did anyone ever explain how the separation of powers in government is supposed to work?

Legislative...enacts legislation

Judicial...determines if laws meet the scope of the constitution.

Executive...ensures laws of the land are enforced.

So when the judicial branch (including lower federal courts) makes a ruling, it is the job of the POTUS to follow those laws, not to decide which laws he agrees with and which ones he doesn't...and act on those personal beliefs.

Steve

LWW
02-26-2011, 12:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you suggesting that it is ok for a POTUS to determine on his own, which laws he thinks are constitutional and which ones aren't???????????????????

I always thought that was the job of the SCOTUS.

I think Obama's oath said something about upholding the laws of the country...not arbitrarily deciding which laws are worthy of upholding.

Steve </div></div>

Are you suggesting that it is ok for a POTUS to determine on his own, which laws he thinks are constitutional and which ones aren't???????????????????

It's part of his job, and among the reasons he has a veto power. YES, OF COURSE, he should use his informed judgment to veto bills that are unConstitutional, in his opinion, rather than pass them into law by his signature.</div></div>

OMFG!!

Proof again that the far left wishes that dear leader be king!

The POTUS has veto power, true ... but even that power isn't to decide the constitutionality of a bill. It is to agrre/disagree with the bill's intent. Many bills have been vetoed that would have entirely within the rules of the COTUS.

The POTUS has no legal authority ... as much as this pains the left ... to determine whether or not existing law is or isn't constitutional.

I wish for once, just <span style='font-size: 26pt'>ONCE</span>, the left would actually read the document.

LWW

LWW
02-26-2011, 12:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you suggesting that it is ok for a POTUS to determine on his own, which laws he thinks are constitutional and which ones aren't???????????????????

I always thought that was the job of the SCOTUS.

</div></div>

Hmmm. Some here thought it was the job of federal judges, whose decisions are thought to be binding on the executive branch even though not final. At least this is an upgraded opinion. </div></div>

Yes, a federal judge's ruling is by law binding upon the executive branch.

The POTUS may appeal such ruling by right, but to ignore said ruling is an impeachable defense by any sane definition.

LWW

Qtec
02-26-2011, 02:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Signing statement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ronald Reagan, left, and George H. W. Bush; both presidents issued significant numbers of signing statements containing constitutional objections to laws passed by Congress.

A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law. They are usually printed along with the bill in United States Code Congressional and Administrative News (USCCAN).

During the administration of President George W. Bush, there was a controversy over the President's use of signing statements, which critics charged was <u>unusually extensive and modified the meaning of statutes.</u> The practice predates the Bush administration, however, and has since been continued by the Obama administration.[1] In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers" </div></div>

list of Bush S.St (http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm)

Q

Gayle in MD
02-26-2011, 04:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you suggesting that it is ok for a POTUS to determine on his own, which laws he thinks are constitutional and which ones aren't???????????????????

I always thought that was the job of the SCOTUS.

</div></div>

Hmmm. Some here thought it was the job of federal judges, whose decisions are thought to be binding on the executive branch even though not final. At least this is an upgraded opinion. </div></div>


<span style="color: #660000"> LOL, posts like this should give you some idea of why most Liberals have left this forum.

But, I digress.

This decision by the President, is surely nothing new, it has been used a dozen times, in the last fifty years, by Presidents of both parties, and the actual result, is that it will push this issue in front of the Supreme court, sooner.

So, this is representative once again, of the clarity of President Obama's decisions, and the appropriate goals and directions, which they always display, at least, to those who understand how their government works.

After reading thread titles, which demonize the president for having private (Called secret, lol) meetings with foreign affairs, experts, about foreign affairs, as though that is anything new, here we see the same misunderstanding and misinformation, about the Constitution, and how the President is charged with the duty to oversee it's changing evolution, which keeps the document, relevant to the times, through history.

Additionally, No private meeting in the oval office, is inappropriate, on any national Security or Domestic issue, but never before has a president, or vice president held the nation's energy policy, secret, other than Cheney, holding secret meetings with the American Energy Corporations, some of them, his, and George Bush's former business associates, to set the Nation's energy policies, and then going all the way to the Supreme Court, to KEEP them secret.

The outraged right, is always outraged over traditional government policies, as usual, whenever Democratics have the ball.

However, unprecedented, documented overreaching of power, which virtually removes the check and balances of our government entirely, such as unprecedented use of Signing Statments, used to ignore congressional LAW, and even obstruction of justice, is readily acceptable, by the right, as long as Republicans are doing it, and that is also their view of spending, fine when repubs spend, on pork, bad when Dems spend to divert a national emergency, lol. </span>

LWW
02-26-2011, 04:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This decision by the President, is surely nothing new, it has been used a dozen times, in the last fifty years, by Presidents of both parties </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you make a claim, you post a link.

Q </div></div>

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-26-2011, 12:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you suggesting that it is ok for a POTUS to determine on his own, which laws he thinks are constitutional and which ones aren't???????????????????

I always thought that was the job of the SCOTUS.

I think Obama's oath said something about upholding the laws of the country...not arbitrarily deciding which laws are worthy of upholding.

Steve </div></div>

Are you suggesting that it is ok for a POTUS to determine on his own, which laws he thinks are constitutional and which ones aren't???????????????????

It's part of his job, and among the reasons he has a veto power. YES, OF COURSE, he should use his informed judgment to veto bills that are unConstitutional, in his opinion, rather than pass them into law by his signature.</div></div>

OMFG!!

Proof again that the far left wishes that dear leader be king!

The POTUS has veto power, true ... but even that power isn't to decide the constitutionality of a bill. It is to agrre/disagree with the bill's intent. Many bills have been vetoed that would have entirely within the rules of the COTUS.

The POTUS has no legal authority ... as much as this pains the left ... to determine whether or not existing law is or isn't constitutional.

I wish for once, just <span style='font-size: 26pt'>ONCE</span>, the left would actually read the document.

LWW
</div></div>

Thomas Jefferson decided to not enforce the Alien and Sedition Act, on account of Constitutional questions.

Founding Father. Early 19th century. No leftists around as we know them today.

A presidential determination of a law's unConstitutionality is one of the reasons he may decide to veto it, and that has occurred on multiple occasions.

Gingrich has now ducked his head, and had his staff put out that he does NOT think this action is impeachable at all, actually (despite what he said earlier).

LWW
02-26-2011, 03:29 PM
And which one's did he veto solely because he deemed them unconstitutional?

What's that?

I wasn't supposed to figure out you were clueless and attempting to change the subject?

Sorry about your luck.

LWW

LWW
02-26-2011, 03:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thomas Jefferson decided to not enforce the Alien and Sedition Act, on account of Constitutional questions.

Founding Father. Early 19th century. No leftists around as we know them today.

A presidential determination of a law's unConstitutionality is one of the reasons he may decide to veto it, and that has occurred on multiple occasions.

Gingrich has now ducked his head, and had his staff put out that he does NOT think this action is impeachable at all, actually (despite what he said earlier). </div></div>

You are, once again, completely wrong.

TJ was VPOTUS when the act was passed.

He did oppose it.

It expired, by the act itself, at the end of Adam's term as POTUS.

TJ did pardon those convicted under the act, which he clearly had the power to do.

LWW &lt;--- Teaching the history the far left refuses to learn.

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act)

JohnnyD
02-26-2011, 03:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thomas Jefferson decided to not enforce the Alien and Sedition Act, on account of Constitutional questions.

Founding Father. Early 19th century. No leftists around as we know them today.

A presidential determination of a law's unConstitutionality is one of the reasons he may decide to veto it, and that has occurred on multiple occasions.

Gingrich has now ducked his head, and had his staff put out that he does NOT think this action is impeachable at all, actually (despite what he said earlier). </div></div>

You are, once again, completely wrong.

TJ was VPOTUS when the act was passed.

He did oppose it.

It expired, by the act itself, at the end of Adam's term as POTUS.

TJ did pardon those convicted under the act, which he clearly had the power to do.

LWW &lt;--- Teaching the history the far left refuses to learn.

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act)
</div></div>History is historical.History is fact.History is truth.The truth is there.

LWW
02-26-2011, 03:45 PM
Yes JohnnyD, but one must accept truth.

LWW

JohnnyD
02-26-2011, 03:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes JohnnyD, but one must accept truth.

LWW </div></div>Once they find the truth they have a choice to either accept it or not.The truth will set them free.

LWW
02-27-2011, 05:37 AM
It's a shame the O-cult is cheering for their own demise.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-27-2011, 02:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thomas Jefferson decided to not enforce the Alien and Sedition Act, on account of Constitutional questions.

Founding Father. Early 19th century. No leftists around as we know them today.

A presidential determination of a law's unConstitutionality is one of the reasons he may decide to veto it, and that has occurred on multiple occasions.

Gingrich has now ducked his head, and had his staff put out that he does NOT think this action is impeachable at all, actually (despite what he said earlier). </div></div>

You are, once again, completely wrong.

TJ was VPOTUS when the act was passed.

He did oppose it.

It expired, by the act itself, at the end of Adam's term as POTUS.

TJ did pardon those convicted under the act, which he clearly had the power to do.

LWW &lt;--- Teaching the history the far left refuses to learn.

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act)
</div></div>

Sure, but there were cases of prosecution on that act still PENDING as of his taking office, and he ordered those pending prosecutions ended, instead of letting the law and the courts finish out what the law required.

Soflasnapper
02-27-2011, 02:55 PM
BTW, 'signing statements' are usually the position of the president, stating AS OF THE SIGNING that he will not enforce this or that part of the law that he is signing into law, exactly because of separation of powers, Constitutional reasons.

Considering that now-Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, John Roberts, while he was Solicitor-General under Bush, HIMSELF argued and won agreement in the administration that he shouldn't defend the Constitutionality of a given statute (and he was not the POTUS or the AG), it's relatively clear that the SCOTUS now would not take the opposite position.

LWW
02-27-2011, 03:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thomas Jefferson decided to not enforce the Alien and Sedition Act, on account of Constitutional questions.

Founding Father. Early 19th century. No leftists around as we know them today.

A presidential determination of a law's unConstitutionality is one of the reasons he may decide to veto it, and that has occurred on multiple occasions.

Gingrich has now ducked his head, and had his staff put out that he does NOT think this action is impeachable at all, actually (despite what he said earlier). </div></div>

You are, once again, completely wrong.

TJ was VPOTUS when the act was passed.

He did oppose it.

It expired, by the act itself, at the end of Adam's term as POTUS.

TJ did pardon those convicted under the act, which he clearly had the power to do.

LWW &lt;--- Teaching the history the far left refuses to learn.

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act)
</div></div>

Sure, but there were cases of prosecution on that act still PENDING as of his taking office, and he ordered those pending prosecutions ended, instead of letting the law and the courts finish out what the law required. </div></div>

Why do you insist upon such public self flagellation?

You made a ridiculous claim that you cannot back up.

Besides that ... at this point I have to believe that you know this.

LWW

LWW
02-27-2011, 03:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, 'signing statements' are usually the position of the president, stating AS OF THE SIGNING that he will not enforce this or that part of the law that he is signing into law, exactly because of separation of powers, Constitutional reasons.

Considering that now-Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, John Roberts, while he was Solicitor-General under Bush, HIMSELF argued and won agreement in the administration that he shouldn't defend the Constitutionality of a given statute (and he was not the POTUS or the AG), it's relatively clear that the SCOTUS now would not take the opposite position. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you make a claim, you post a link.

Q </div></div>

LWW

LWW
02-27-2011, 03:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, 'signing statements' are usually the position of the president, stating AS OF THE SIGNING that he will not enforce this or that part of the law that he is signing into law, exactly because of separation of powers, Constitutional reasons.

Considering that now-Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, John Roberts, while he was Solicitor-General under Bush, HIMSELF argued and won agreement in the administration that he shouldn't defend the Constitutionality of a given statute (and he was not the POTUS or the AG), it's relatively clear that the SCOTUS now would not take the opposite position. </div></div>

And, beyond that, completely irrelevant.

Once a law has been passed by both houses of congress and signed by the POTUS it is the law of the land unless and until the courts deem it unconstitutional.

A future POTUS has no legal authority to refuse to enforce the law.

We are nation of laws and not a nation of men. If you accept that the POTUS has the right to void law ... then you accept the fact that he/she has the authority of a king.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-27-2011, 04:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thomas Jefferson decided to not enforce the Alien and Sedition Act, on account of Constitutional questions.

Founding Father. Early 19th century. No leftists around as we know them today.

A presidential determination of a law's unConstitutionality is one of the reasons he may decide to veto it, and that has occurred on multiple occasions.

Gingrich has now ducked his head, and had his staff put out that he does NOT think this action is impeachable at all, actually (despite what he said earlier). </div></div>

You are, once again, completely wrong.

TJ was VPOTUS when the act was passed.

He did oppose it.

It expired, by the act itself, at the end of Adam's term as POTUS.

TJ did pardon those convicted under the act, which he clearly had the power to do.

LWW &lt;--- Teaching the history the far left refuses to learn.

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act)
</div></div>

Sure, but there were cases of prosecution on that act still PENDING as of his taking office, and he ordered those pending prosecutions ended, instead of letting the law and the courts finish out what the law required. </div></div>

Why do you insist upon such public self flagellation?

You made a ridiculous claim that you cannot back up.

Besides that ... at this point I have to believe that you know this.

LWW </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Precedent Traces Back To Thomas Jefferson

Prakash: Thomas Jefferson Was The First President To Refuse Enforcement Of An Unconstitutional Statute. From Prakash's Georgetown Law Journal paper:

As a matter of history, Thomas Jefferson was the first President who felt compelled to cease enforcement of a statute he regarded as unconstitutional. Believing that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, Jefferson ordered his prosecutors to cease all existing Sedition Act prosecutions. Jefferson felt constitutionally obliged to arrest the execution of unconstitutional laws. He also concluded that his Faithful Execution duty did not extend to unconstitutional laws because the latter were null and void. He was confident in his conclusions, believing there was "no weak part in any of these positions or inferences." [Georgetown Law Journal, 6/08]
</div></div>

Here (again) (http://mediamatters.org/research/201102250041)

LWW, unless you fancy yourself a scholar in this area, or think the people you get your talking points from are, why do you think things are so simply because you haven't heard to the contrary (but you never looked)?

More modesty, please! LOL!

Soflasnapper
02-27-2011, 05:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, 'signing statements' are usually the position of the president, stating AS OF THE SIGNING that he will not enforce this or that part of the law that he is signing into law, exactly because of separation of powers, Constitutional reasons.

Considering that now-Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, John Roberts, while he was Solicitor-General under Bush, HIMSELF argued and won agreement in the administration that he shouldn't defend the Constitutionality of a given statute (and he was not the POTUS or the AG), it's relatively clear that the SCOTUS now would not take the opposite position. </div></div>

And, beyond that, completely irrelevant.

Once a law has been passed by both houses of congress and signed by the POTUS it is the law of the land unless and until the courts deem it unconstitutional.

A future POTUS has no legal authority to refuse to enforce the law.

We are nation of laws and not a nation of men. If you accept that the POTUS has the right to void law ... then you accept the fact that he/she has the authority of a king.

LWW </div></div>

Not paying attention the last 10 years, or what?

That last president, who you feel has been so badly and inappropriately scorned, asserted that HE could (and then DID) ignore any law, or even any Constitutional amendment from the Bill of Rights, according to his own sole judgment as commander-in-chief during war (which war was to never end, btw).

That explicitly included taking US citizens into custody without Miranda warnings, not allowing them access to legal counsel, having no right to a speedy trial, no right to be charged or if not promptly charged, released (i.e., cancelling habeas corpus), no right to confront their accusers or even to know what (secret) evidence they were being tried on, etc., etc.

Refusing to abide by a law, as W did about 700 different times in his signing statements, is actually the least bad thing he did, by comparison to his utter dictatorial approach with regard to US citizens' Constitutional and human rights.

LWW
02-28-2011, 02:06 AM
BLAH BLAH BLAH shot down already.

Next lame defense of thugocracy?

LWW

Stretch
02-28-2011, 08:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BLAH BLAH BLAH shot down already.

Next lame defense of thugocracy?

LWW </div></div>

Nice, you were shot down to a two sentence retort. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif St.

Qtec
02-28-2011, 08:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not paying attention the last 10 years, or what?

That last president, who you feel has been so badly and inappropriately scorned, asserted that HE could (and then DID) ignore any law, or even any Constitutional amendment from the Bill of Rights, according to his own sole judgment as commander-in-chief during war (which war was to never end, btw). </div></div>

My sentiments exactly. Good post, but will he get it?


Q...nahhhhhhhhhhh

Soflasnapper
02-28-2011, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BLAH BLAH BLAH shot down already.

Next lame defense of thugocracy?

LWW </div></div>

I don't know what your next lame defense of Bush's thugocracy will be, but this last one (above) is lame enough already that it will be hard to top for lameness.

If you aren't aware of the unitary executive theory under which Bush proceeded, and that it is exactly as I say, I suppose you have now reached invincible ignorance.

Stretch
02-28-2011, 09:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not paying attention the last 10 years, or what?

That last president, who you feel has been so badly and inappropriately scorned, asserted that HE could (and then DID) ignore any law, or even any Constitutional amendment from the Bill of Rights, according to his own sole judgment as commander-in-chief during war (which war was to never end, btw). </div></div>

My sentiments exactly. Good post, but will he get it?


Q...nahhhhhhhhhhh </div></div>

Just a sec. i'll check.........................Nope, he's still digging. St.

Sev
02-28-2011, 09:19 AM
We should have just nuked Iraq and saved us a lot of time, trouble, money and lives.

LWW
02-28-2011, 10:28 AM
I see the strawman industry is thriving.

LWW

Stretch
03-01-2011, 04:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see the strawman industry is thriving.

LWW </div></div>

Your participation is evidence of that. St.

Qtec
03-01-2011, 05:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Just a sec. i'll check.........................Nope, he's still digging. St. </div></div>

LOL



I must say in LWW's defence, he really shot down Sofla with this line by line rebuttal.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>BLAH BLAH BLAH shot down already.</u>

Next lame defence of thugocracy?

LWW </div></div>

LMFAO.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
03-01-2011, 01:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Just a sec. i'll check.........................Nope, he's still digging. St. </div></div>

LOL



I must say in LWW's defence, he really shot down Sofla with this line by line rebuttal.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>BLAH BLAH BLAH shot down already.</u>

Next lame defence of thugocracy?

LWW </div></div>

LMFAO.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Bush operated the most corrupt administration in history, even worse than Nixon...

Firing all of thos AG.'s, because they refused to join in the REpiglican calls for corruption of the DOJ!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFO5koNDhig&feature=related


Repigs, have two different standards, one for their own team, who are so stunningly corrupt, that they have to make up and twist facts, building mountains out of molehills, in order to ginn up their idiot followers, to make them "think" something went on that wasn't kosher...it's all repiglican BS, hype for the hypertensive, ill, radical RW religious nutjobs, who think the earth is only five thousand years old, LMAO!.....

G.

Soflasnapper
03-01-2011, 04:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Just a sec. i'll check.........................Nope, he's still digging. St. </div></div>

LOL



I must say in LWW's defence, he really shot down Sofla with this line by line rebuttal.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>BLAH BLAH BLAH shot down already.</u>

Next lame defence of thugocracy?

LWW </div></div>

LMFAO.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Bush operated the most corrupt administration in history, even worse than Nixon...

Firing all of thos AG.'s, because they refused to join in the REpiglican calls for corruption of the DOJ!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFO5koNDhig&feature=related


Repigs, have two different standards, one for their own team, who are so stunningly corrupt, that they have to make up and twist facts, building mountains out of molehills, in order to ginn up their idiot followers, to make them "think" something went on that wasn't kosher...it's all repiglican BS, hype for the hypertensive, ill, radical RW religious nutjobs, who think the earth is only five thousand years old, LMAO!.....

G. </div></div>

Actually, I'd go with Reagan for most corrupt administration, based on the number of felony convictions of said administration members. W's PARTY was perhaps at its most corrupt, and W's administration plenty corrupt, but fewer convictions of top people than with Reagan.

LWW
03-01-2011, 05:47 PM
Then you would have went with the wrong horse again.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Clinton Legacy
The Progressive Review

This list was compiled at the end of the Clinton administration. It was last partially updated in 2000. A few other emendations are list as footnotes.

Our Clinton Scandal Index

The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Yet seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years. Here are some of the facts that have been buried.

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.
- Second 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. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>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.</span> ...

STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): <span style='font-size: 14pt'>14</span>
- 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: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>47</span>
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>33</span>
- 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: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>122</span> ...

CAMPAIGN FINANCE INVESTIGATION

- <span style='font-size: 17pt'>As of June 2000, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.</span>
- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign. </span>
-James Riady entered a plea agreement to pay an $8.5 million fine for campaign finance crimes. This was a record under campaign finance laws.

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS WERE OBTAINED

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Drug trafficking (3)</span>, 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.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

- Number of independent counsel inquiries since the 1978 law was passed: 19
- Number that have produced indictments: 7
- Number that produced more convictions than the Starr investigation: 1
- Median length of investigations that led to convictions: 44 months
- Length of Starr-Ray investigation: 69 months. ...

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

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him <span style='font-size: 14pt'>267</span> times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

ARKANSAS SUDDEN DEATH SYNDROME

- Number of persons in the Clinton machine orbit who are alleged to have committed suicide: 9
- Number known to have been murdered: 12
- Number who died in plane crashes: 6
- Number who died in single car automobile accidents: 3 ...

UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENA

- FBI files misappropriated by the White House: c. 900
- Number of witnesses and critics of Clinton subjected to IRS audit: 45
- Number of names placed in a White House secret database without the knowledge of those named: c. 200,000
- Number of women involved with Clinton who claim to have been physically threatened (Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Juantia Broaddrick): <span style='font-size: 14pt'>6</span>
- Number of men involved in the Clinton scandals who have been beaten up or claimed to have been intimidated: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>10</span>
</div></div>

OH MY! (http://prorev.com/legacy.htm)

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-02-2011, 01:29 PM
I've made my personal complaint to the ProgReview's site director and author of this piece, Sam Smith, probably 10 years ago or more when he first published that smear piece. (It might even be there still if he's archived the responses, don't know.)

It's an apples to oranges comparison, which is obvious if you read the piece. Why? Because in the Nixon and Reagan counterexamples, the crimes charged, indictments, felony convictions, etc., were compiled for SITTING ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ABUSING THEIR OFFICES in criminal fashion.

Few if any (likely, zero) of what Smith compiles here relate to Clinton administration officials found to have committed crimes in the course of their official duties. (Webb Hubbell, for example, was convicted of over-billing back in the private sector prior to entering public service, by which action he was defrauding his fellow Rose Law partners, INCLUDING HRC herself).

Actually, if you EXTEND this new definition of corruption to associates outside of government, it is far from clear that Nixon and Reagan don't fare as badly or worse (because no one calls corruption of associates from before taking office, who aren't in office, administration corruption. It is PRIVATE corruption, not abuse of official duties in a corrupt fashion).

Yes, of course, when it was official GOP policy for Gingrich and other leaders to SOLICIT investigations on Clinton, as a key method of crippling his presidency and attempting to remove him from office, resulting in over 65 Congressional investigations at a cost of in the neighborhood of $100 million dollars, MANY MANY (false) allegations were raised, many unrelated third party persons were put through ruinously expensive prosecutions or investigations multiplied like topsy into IC investigations, and yes, under such pressures, some copped pleas, and in some cases, real crimes were revealed. BUT NOT OF ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS FOR OFFICIAL ACTS WHILE IN OFFICE.

In fact, with such an array of scrutiny which was unprecedented in American history, the utter lack of official acts of corruption that could be found may just indicate that Clinton's ADMINISTRATION was exactly the most ethical in history, as was the aspirational goal uniquely set by Clinton alone among any presidents that I've ever learned of.

LWW
03-02-2011, 05:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've made my personal complaint to the ProgReview's site director and author of this piece, Sam Smith, probably 10 years ago or more when he first published that smear piece. (It might even be there still if he's archived the responses, don't know.)
</div></div>

Why do you hate truth?

LWW

Stretch
03-02-2011, 05:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've made my personal complaint to the ProgReview's site director and author of this piece, Sam Smith, probably 10 years ago or more when he first published that smear piece. (It might even be there still if he's archived the responses, don't know.)
</div></div>

Why do you hate truth?

LWW </div></div>

It would help your case if you knew what that was. St.

LWW
03-03-2011, 02:15 AM
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-03-2011, 05:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've made my personal complaint to the ProgReview's site director and author of this piece, Sam Smith, probably 10 years ago or more when he first published that smear piece. (It might even be there still if he's archived the responses, don't know.)
</div></div>

Why do you hate truth?

LWW </div></div>

I resent crap presented as truth.

It is simply not true that Webb Hubbell or Henry Cisneros were guilty of public corruption or abusing their offices. And since each and every public corruption charge against the Clintons and their administration members turned up bupkus, the case that they were the most corrupt administration is false.

It's entirely true that they come up in the wild, wild corrupt state of Arkansas, and the listing of past associates there and their legal scrapes proves that point.

Just as was still more the case with Harry Truman, who was a direct protege of the very corrupt Pendegast crime machine of Kansas City, MO. (Truman's first bid for office came almost by default, when after the Pendegast machine KILLED two candidates, all other candidates refused to take the nomination, but Truman accepted it under those dreadful circumstances.)

LWW
03-04-2011, 06:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've made my personal complaint to the ProgReview's site director and author of this piece, Sam Smith, probably 10 years ago or more when he first published that smear piece. (It might even be there still if he's archived the responses, don't know.)
</div></div>

Why do you hate truth?

LWW </div></div>

I resent crap presented as truth.

It is simply not true that Webb Hubbell or Henry Cisneros were guilty of public corruption or abusing their offices. </div></div>

That's simply precious.

I did a word search, rather than read the entire treatise again, and here's what I found:

1 - The word "HUBBELL" did not appear.

2 - The word "CISNEROS" did not appear.

3 - You will do anything to lamely defend leftist criminal activity.

4 - There is no level you won't stoop to in an effort to slime anyone who opposes the party.

5 - You fabricate things in an effort to claim someone else misrepresents history, while clinging desperately to the proven lies of common convicted criminals such as Nussbacher.

6 - You have been hoist by your own petard. Again.

LWW

Soflasnapper
06-11-2011, 06:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> me:
I resent crap presented as truth.

It is simply not true that Webb Hubbell or Henry Cisneros were guilty of public corruption or abusing their offices.</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW: That's simply precious.

I did a word search, rather than read the entire treatise again, and here's what I found:

1 - The word "HUBBELL" did not appear.

2 - The word "CISNEROS" did not appear.

3 - You will do anything to lamely defend leftist criminal activity.

4 - There is no level you won't stoop to in an effort to slime anyone who opposes the party.

5 - You fabricate things in an effort to claim someone else misrepresents history, while clinging desperately to the proven lies of common convicted criminals such as Nussbacher.

6 - You have been hoist by your own petard. Again.</div></div>

Technically true, in that they were not mentioned BY NAME. Constructively false, however.

If you know their job titles, who brought the prosecution, and what happened in their cases, they are included in the totals.

The rest of your number points are simply projection of what you are onto others. As we've grown to expect.

LWW
06-11-2011, 08:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I resent crap presented as truth.

It is simply not true that Webb Hubbell or Henry Cisneros were guilty of public corruption or abusing their offices.</div></div>

You really should learn to review the truth before you post.

WEBSTER LEE HUBBELL: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Hubbell)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In January 1993, Hubbell's former partners at the Rose Law Firm discovered what appeared to be irregularities in Hubbell's bills to clients. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The Independent Counsel later found that Hubbell had billed clients for services he never performed, and that he failed to report that income on his tax returns.</span> Shortly after Independent Counsel Robert Fiske opened a criminal probe into the matter, Hubbell resigned as associate attorney general on March 14, 1994.[1]

The day before Hubbell announced his resignation, there was a meeting of senior White House officials, including President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton, and Chief of Staff Mack McLarty. At the meeting, McLarty told Hillary Clinton that White House employees would "be supportive" of Hubbell.[1] <span style='font-size: 11pt'>This meeting garnered suspicions that, as a New York Times editorial put it, there had been "a possible effort to obstruct justice by securing Mr. Hubbell's silence on crucial elements of the Whitewater case."[8] During the sixteen months after Hubbell's resignation, he received seventeen consulting contracts totaling over $450,000 from supporters of President Clinton. While the Independent Counsel, found that Hubbell "did little or no work for the money paid by his consulting clients,"</span> he determined there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the money was intended to influence Hubbell's cooperation with investigators in the Whitewater investigation.[1]
Criminal charges and associated litigation

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>On June 28, 1995, Judge George Howard sentenced Hubbell to 21 months' imprisonment.[1] Hubbell had pled guilty. As part of his guilty plea, Hubbell entered an immunity agreement with independent counsel Kenneth Starr in exchange for his cooperation in the Whitewater investigation. He entered Federal Correctional Institution, Cumberland in August 1995, and was released from a half-way house in February 1997.</span>[9] Hubbell exercised daily and dropped nearly 100 pounds while he was in prison.[10]

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>On April 30, 1998, Hubbell and his wife were indicted on 10 counts of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud.</span>[9] District Judge James Robertson threw out the charges on July 1, 1998, ruling that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr had overstepped his authority in bringing forth the Hubbell indictment. Robertson also ruled that Starr had violated Hubbell's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination by building a case that relied on materials collected under an immunity agreement with Hubbell.[11] The prosecutor appealed to the Court of Appeals and the District Court was reversed. Hubbell then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision (with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist being the lone dissenter), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hubbell. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>On November 14, 1998, Hubbell was indicted by Kenneth Starr for a third time, this time for fraud and lying to the House Banking Committee and federal banking regulators.</span>[12]

On June 30, 1999, Hubbell entered into a new plea agreement with Starr, resolving the second and third indictments. Hubbell pleaded guilty to two charges and was sentenced to one year's probation. </div></div>

HENRY GABRIEL CISNEROS: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cisneros)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>In March 1995, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno secured the appointment of an Independent Counsel, David Barrett to investigate allegations that Cisneros had lied to FBI investigators during background checks prior to being named Secretary of HUD.</span> He had been asked about payments that he had made to former mistress Linda Medlar, also known as Linda Jones. The affair had been 'public knowledge' for a number of years. Cisneros lied about the amount of money he had paid to Medlar. The investigation continued for three and a half years.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In December 1997, Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, giving false statements and obstruction of Justice.</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Medlar used some of the Cisneros hush money to purchase a house and entered into a bank fraud scheme with her sister and brother-in-law to conceal the source of the money. In January, 1998, Medlar pleaded guilty to 28 charges of bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and obstruction of justice.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In September 1999, Cisneros negotiated a plea agreement, under which he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI, and was fined $10,000. He did not receive jail time or probation. He was pardoned by President Bill Clinton in January 2001.</span> </div></div>

Qtec
06-12-2011, 12:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've made my personal complaint to the ProgReview's site director and author of this piece, Sam Smith, probably 10 years ago or more when he first published that smear piece. (It might even be there still if he's archived the responses, don't know.) </div></div>

This junk has been thoroughly debunked years ago but people like LWW keep bringing it up.

Q

Soflasnapper
06-12-2011, 01:49 PM
Q, it's not that these totals of processes didn't occur. They did. Of course, they do not distinguish between investigations launched vs. convictions won, or jumble them all together so that all accusations are implied to have been proven and convictions or pleas won.

It's rather how they're characterized as official corruption of Clinton, or the Clinton administration.

Frankly, there are so many laws, and clever new arguments about what falls under the category of so many laws, that if you let loose an Independent Counsel and/or targeted someone and his circle with 100 or more Congressional investigations, of course anybody and his associates would come up with some actionable fact situations.

This was why Reagan, despite a Senate vote of 85-10 to reinstate the IC office, vetoed it in the first place. Reagan and Bush the Wiser could never have lasted in office with that kind of scrutiny brought against them.

LWW
06-12-2011, 06:28 PM
So your argument boils down to "JUST BECAUSE THEY DID IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY DID IT!" once again.

Soflasnapper
06-13-2011, 06:21 PM
Not at all. I'm saying where there's smoke, sometimes there is no fire, but only a smoke machine. As in these cases.

Gingrich put out a memo to all his committee chairs to use their areas of jurisdiction to lay on investigation after investigation, as a political campaign against Clinton. Literally 100 Congressional investigations or more later, it would be astonishing if nothing were found.

Similarly with the IC. The IC enjoys the plenary powers of the Attorney General, no budgetary restrictions, unlimited use of FBI investigators, etc.

What did he use them doing? Among other things, sending scores of them to Arkansas to dig up purported wrong-doing (read: sexual allegations) that had nothing to do with Clinton's White House or administration, nailing for instance Clinton's political rival who succeeded him as governor there. Which reflects on Clinton, how? They weren't 'associates,' or even political allies, but rivals and enemies.

For another, spending 2 years re-researching the Foster case, doing a inch-by-inch (literally) search of the Ft. Marcy woods for bullets.

So, that Clinton led in the number of '-Gates (pseudo-) scandals is a function of the level of scrutiny, and charges brought, not convictions won for official crime of those people as administration members abusing their offices. Of which there were approximately zero.

Things like lying during questioning about how much Cisneros was paying his mistress off in the years before. Yes, they nailed Cisneros, for his private actions taking place before he was even in the administration. And this was typical.

What I'm saying is that if you let any prosecutor run amok, having no budget or time restraints, and an animus against the person, ANY administration would look bad. Most would be found to have actual official corruption in the course of official duties (as in the Reagan HUD scandal, where everyone EXCEPT the HUD Sec. in a senior position was convicted of a felony crime of stealing BILLIONS OF DOLLARS).

LWW
06-13-2011, 07:53 PM
So your argument still boils down to "JUST BECAUSE THEY DID IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY DID IT!" once again.

Soflasnapper
06-14-2011, 12:37 PM
Actually, I'm denying they did 'it' at all, as properly characterized.

LWW
06-14-2011, 04:07 PM
So entering a guilty plea doesn't mean anything?

I'll amend my accusation to your argument boils down to just because they admit they did it doesn't mean they did it.