Story Comments
Posted by: injest 1 year, 8 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, said he hoped Pelosi's demand would spur the department to "put the partisan manipulation of our system of justice behind it" and take the issue to a grand jury."
Oh YES please do that!
Convene a grand jury to determine if jobs that are political appointments based politics are somehow influenced by politics.
Ya that will be a hoot!
Go for it Nancy you can only lose 11% approval rating for congress!
And that's the 11% who still believe something wrong was done.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It doesn't have to do with the political appointments anymore. It has to do with disregarding a subpoena.
And there are massive amounts of evidence--despite all the missing White House e-mails, another crime--that something wrong was done. If you want to close your eyes to briefings on how to treat Democrats differently from Repubicans being given in PowerPoint by the "White House Political Director" at federal agencies, then you're in deep denial.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Bacalao1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gee, I wonder what you will be saying when the Democratic Party is in control of our government and tries the same things that Bush has. Will you say its OK for them to act that way? Or will you be aping the things the Dems are saying now?
Reply -
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Pelosi & Gang need to be investigated for impersonating Congress 'persons'."
Hmm...So they should be investigated for doing the very things the GOP Congress got kicked out of power in '06 for *not* doing in the prior six years of the Bush administration? Ooo-kayyyy... ;-x
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It doesn't have to do with the political appointments anymore. It has to do with disregarding a subpoena."
Sorry wrong again. This is still about the Admin's hiring and firing of the admin's personnel. Yes politically appointed jobs like "Federal Prosecutors".
abstract scenario
Cop pulls over driver for driving 35 mph un-erratically in a 35 mph zone.
Diver ask why he was pulled over? Cop says driving 35 mph in a 35 mph zone.
Cop then wants to search driver's car. Driver tells cop "go pound sand". Cop then wants to examine drivers personal finances. Driver tells cop "go pound sand". Cop wants driver to perform a field sobriety test, Driver tells cop go Flock your self.
Now the cop WANTS to charge driver with being un-cooperative
This is where we are today.
Now the cop needs to go to court and explain why stopping a driver for driving 35 mph in a 35 mph zone un-erratically was warranted.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The cop KNOWS he will lose big time in a court of law, most likely will cost him his job. Now the cop, desperate, is trying to run this case in the court of public opinion.
The driver is still telling the cop to "go Flock your self and pound sand, better yet go Flock your self with sand"
And lets go to court.
2 years running, the cop is now pleading to charge the driver with a "misdemeanor" a petty misdemeanor, less than a parking ticket.
Unfortunately for the cop, he will still have to convince a judge he had a reason to stop the driver who was driving 35 mph un-erratically in a 35 mph zone.
EVERY THING goes back to the original reason for the stop, if nothing is there, there is NO CASE, Cop loses.
Nancy and the Dems are the cop.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And there are massive amounts of evidence--despite all the missing White House e-mails, another crime--that something wrong was done"
Really? After 2 years name 1 (one) please name 1.
If you can't name one (1) can you explain why so much time has been wasted on this BS trump up charge?
If you can't name 1 (one) then you're in deep denial.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WHO is in deep denial?
For a little light reading about George W. Bush's impeachable offenses, Google "Bush impeachable offenses."
There are 32,000 hits. Skim just a couple of them. At least the top ones include evidence already uncovered.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"For a little light reading about George W. Bush's impeachable offenses, Google "Bush impeachable offenses."
And which one of those "charges" has ACTUALLY filed? None?
Honestly any moron can make "claims"
If they don't take it to the next level articles of impeachment, then it's just gutter snipping, and deserves no respect.
Reply -
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And there are massive amounts of evidence--despite all the missing White House e-mails, another crime--that something wrong was done"
Really? After 2 years name 1 (one) please name 1."
"For a little light reading about George W. Bush's impeachable offenses, Google "Bush impeachable offenses."
Apparently my question was way to difficult for you to understand.
Thanks for the link AND making MY Point. Obviously according to the LINK YOU GAVE, no crime what so ever could possibly have occurred.
BTW, do you know what a time line is? How bout a calendar? Are you familiar with things like...YEARS?
Obviously not. See Beau,the link YOU GAVE was from 2005. The US Attorneys were replaced in 2006.
Did ya get that Beau? Need an explanation? Okay. 2006 comes AFTER 2005, there is nothing in that list written in 2005 that could possibly apply to something that happened in 2006.
You do know time travel is not possible? Yes?
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not sure what your point was, but as I've said before, this no longer has to do with firing U.S. attorneys any more than Bill Clinton's impeachment had anything to do with Monica Lewinsky. It's about a different crime now.
Ignoring a subpoena to appear before Congress is a crime. It's called "contempt."
I'm sure you're more than familiar with that word.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
donald511 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
injest, if nothing to hide, then testifying should be OK!
Also, only in cases of national security is executive privelege the allowed precedent - not protecting the image of your torturing, preemptive war, eavesdropping party!
Finally, Gonzo did say those 8 lawyers were released "for cause", a lie we all now know!
You really are a fascist bigot, aren't you?
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow the fascist bigot on something that has nothing to do with either!
Thank's Donald51
It is an honor to have ad hominem attack from you. That tells me and the world I have won the argument as you have no point to make.
"injest, if nothing to hide, then testifying should be OK!"
Its called separation of power no branch has power OVER the other, you didn't learn this in the 8th grade?
If the WH ceded on this ALL Presidents from now on would have congress run roughshod over them. That's not going to happen. The WH can not run investigations on the worker bees that congress hires and fires same for the Congress
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Principle, There has to be a REASON to conduct an inquisition. Like Probable Cause that a crime MAY have been committed. As of today NO possible crime concerning the hiring or firing of US Attorneys has EVER been stated. The reason is simple there is no possibility of a crime.
Use your head after 2 years ya think someone would be able to state what possible crime may have been committed.
The ONLY way to compel WH to cooperate on THIS is with a COURT ORDER. The Dems have REFUSED to do anything like getting a COURT ORDER. My guess is they don't want to be slammed AGAIN by the Court telling them to go back to the 8th grade.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Separation of power, Checks and Balances, its vary basic.
"Also, only in cases of national security is executive privelege the allowed precedent - not protecting the image of your torturing, preemptive war, eavesdropping party!"
Donald your claiming that "war" does not fall under "National security" would you like to go before a judge and explain that?
"Finally, Gonzo did say those 8 lawyers were released "for cause", a lie we all now know!"
It is? How so? The job is "at will" meaning they can hire and fire for whatever reason they want including no reason at all. And no they don't have to tell you or the attorneys why.
"You really are a fascist bigot, aren't you?"
Thanks truly
Reply-
Neutral
donald511 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Injest, don't you remember Roberts, Alito and their buddies supporting the unitary executive, where your Dumya can even throw out the Constitution!
So where did "war" come into Bush advisors having federal prosecutors removed? What insanity to imply such!
On those 8 lawyers... there was nothing negatie in the records or ratings to validate Gonzo's "released for cause" But, there is the loss of a lot of Bush administration e-mails to validate political tampering during that timeframe!
You really are a confused, souless, unscrupulous person injest!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Convene a grand jury to determine if jobs that are political appointments based politics are somehow influenced by politics."
--But if my memory serves me, Justice Department staff members Alberto Gonzales, Paul McNulty, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Michael Elston, Michael Battle, and Brad Schlozman, and Bush advisers Karl Rove and Harriet Miers all RESIGNED from the Bush administration over the course of a seven month period last year. Why do you suppose they did that? Because they lack your keen insight?
Reply
-
loading ...
simonsez
vidman04
cherev
ZiegfeldGirl
Ciera-Marie
Charlson
miklkit
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.