Comments for Texas jury indicts Cheney, Gonzalez in prison abuse case »
Posted By STONERS 11 months, 4 weeks ago in Political NewsA Texas grand jury has issued indictments against Vice President Dick Cheney and former attorney general Alberto Gonzalez over abuse at privately run prisons, court documents showed.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 156
-
-
vmoptions-web-directoryComment removed: Hard Banned10 Replies
-
-
19%
Endoscopy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Think about the fact that his money is in a blind trust.
Reply
That trust owns some mutual stock.
Some of the stock in the mutual fund is the prison for profit stock.
Do you own some of that mutual fund or another one that has that same stock?
If you do then they can come after all of you who do under this kind of idiocy.-
-
20%
Endoscopy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Try reading it again. Your attempt at direct involvement is ridiculous. They NEVER had direct involvement with this prison. Just owned stock so that makes them part owner and thereby allowed things to happen. 1000 to 1 Cheney never knew what stocks were in that mutual fund. You libs are pathetic.
Reply
How about this from the story. It seems that most of you missed this. I did the first time I read it. Read it and weep. Apparently this "prosecutor" lost and is going out with a bang seeing how many people he can get angry.
----------------------------
Several other related indictments were brought against a host of public officials in what one lawyer called a circus act by a local prosecutor seeking revenge in his final weeks in office.
"We look forward to having the opportunity to have an independent, competent prosecutor review the facts, and are confident that once that happens these baseless charges will be dismissed," said Michael Cowen, who represents Texas state senator Eddie Lucio.
-
-
100%
lfergie81211 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy
Reply
Are you so naive that you think that Cheney and Bush don't know where their money is invested? Just his actions with Haliburton along was enough to have him impeached from office if another congress was in power at the time. -
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy, you almost got me to agree with you (if his money is truly in a blind trust) until your last line. The point of the case is that Cheney had control over policies regarding the private prisons. If he knew he owned its stock, it's a conflict of interest. Most of us don't have the control over where public money goes Cheney has--if we own the stock, there's no problem.
Reply -
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo, it's not just that the mutual fund held stock, it's that Cheney was in a position to award contracts to those companies. That's a conflict of interest.
Reply
Also Gonzales halted investigations. That's an entirely different set of circumstances.
It does seem, on the basis of the article, that these indictments are part of a slew of accusations leveled against several prominent people, so I share a bit of your skepticism. That said, I don't trust Cheney farther than I can throw a pig iron. It may be a 'blind trust', but you can't tell me the man who holds the second-highest office in the nation doesn't have his 'sources'.
-
-
-
vmoptions-web-directoryComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
91%
Goppy11 months, 3 weeks ago
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
82%
dunkirk11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
why thanks I decided to post something can comprehend. It does appear to be a pattern with you since the nation soundly rejected in a landlside the political agenda you supported over the last eight years to whine and cry about everything and anything vaguely negative with your failed supported agenda. Has to be hard to take for you and it has to be doubly hard when its pointed out like I did in my post. have a nice day. Pitty pot is two doors down on the right. ROFLMAO.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dude, seriously. Do you dislike having your elected officials held accountable for what they do? Don't you think the public should know how they're being ruled?
Reply
If Obama were diverting your tax money to make a profit, it'd bother you, right? Why doesn't it bother you that Cheney does it?
-
-
-
11%
BBcamaro11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Goppy,
Reply
Talking about morals, since Obama is pretty much taking us back in time to the Clinton era with his selections for his cabinet (Why don't I see any change coming out of this). I hope he at least keeps the cigars out of the Oval Office.-
86%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When was Daschle Secretary of Health and Human Services? When was Hillary Secretary of State?
Reply
Frankly, I wouldn't at all mind if Obama took us back to Clinton days. It doesn't have to be a change from EVERYBODY, it just has to be a change from Bush 43.-
25%
BBcamaro11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From MSNBC: Daschle spent 30 years on Capitol Hill as a legislative aide, House member, senator and ultimately Democratic Senate leader. So I ask is this the change we should expect?
Reply
Hillary CLINTON!!! Need I say anymore!!! ran the white house
tangent001 says "Frankly, I wouldn't at all mind if Obama took us back to Clinton days. It doesn't have to be a change from EVERYBODY, it just has to be a change from Bush 43."
Slick Willy truly was a puppet for the rest of the world to bend and mold to anything they wanted. Oh wait here is something else from that administration: The Oil for food program was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995, Yea that turned out well didn't it. The only time he tried to go after any terrorist was when he tried to deflect a another woman coming forward, and you want to go back to that. I thought everyone wanted change.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Charlson11 months, 3 weeks ago
-
19%
Codi693411 months, 3 weeks ago
-
93%
Charlson11 months, 3 weeks ago
-
9%
Codi693411 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, come on! Jefferson is trotted out all the time as a symbol of Democrat corruption and you know it. You don't hear anything about on the news anymore because there is nothing left to say. His trial doesn't begin until December 2. At that time, I expect the story will heat up again.
Reply
Oh, and was Bill Clinton a Republican? How much taxpayer money was spent on those various investigations? How much MSM time did the infamous blue dress get?-
13%
Codi693411 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They treated Bill, and still do ,like a rock star. All of the crap he and his wife did was made into a joke by the MSM. I have heard one thing in the last 2 months about Jefferson, but Stevens they won't shut up about him. Palin did nothing wrong and you call that fair coverage! This treatment is so loop sided and you know it! But it our own fault! We don't want to think for ourselves anymore, we want others to do our thinking for us. Who do you think built Obama up, it was not his record or resume. He had none! Everybody fall in line like herd of sheep. Let's hope that your sheepard don't destroy this nation!
Reply-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I have heard one thing in the last 2 months about Jefferson, but Stevens they won't shut up about him."
Reply
Because Jefferson's trial doesn't start until December 2nd, and Stevens was JUST convicted. It's called, the immediacy of the news cycle.
Yes, Palin became a media punching bag, but it was her own fault. She refused to prepare for interviews and ended up looking like a fool. Winking at the camera during a debate? How 'Reagan-esque' did she think she was?
Is media coverage lop-sided? Yes, but not in the way you think. The MSM is largely governed by profit, and Obama, like it or not, was FAR more of a 'draw' than another cranky, old, white guy. His candidacy was historic and McCain was simply, well, more of the same.
It's the same kind of love affair the media had with Kennedy and, yes, Ronald Reagan.-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You can't defend that!"
Reply
Oh, yes I can! Obama was given extreme scrutiny by the press when it was between Obama and Clinton, you can't deny that. Look at all the coverage given to Rev. Wright! That was all the media could talk about. It seems the MSM was 'in the tank' for Hillary very early on, because they thought she was 'anointed'. Obama overcame that through a grass-roots campaign. When Obama emerged as the nominee, I'm sorry, but all the attacks Clinton used instantly became 'old news'.
McCain suffered because his candidacy was not 'historic'.
Obama wasn't given a 'pass' by the media. It's just that all the scrutiny was given during the primary. Nobody really cared about McCain, since the Rep primary was such a train-wreck to begin with.-
0%
Codi693411 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not a Hillary fan, and even I think she got the short end. With off the cuff comments( spread the wealth, bankrupt the coal industry) that Obama made and Biden's gaff( crisis' in the first 6 months, patriotic to pay more taxes), all the BS about Palin. MSM had grown tired of the Clintons and was in the tank from day one for Obama. They got there man!
Reply
-
-
100%
wtagg11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can think of plenty of what you call main stream media supporting the republican candidate.
Reply
Maybe you should elaborate on your definition of what is the main stream media. I have a funny feeling that many corporations and individuals are not included in yours, though they have large, if not industry leading, audiences.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
88%
Lurch11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LMAO.
Reply
What a hypocrite.
Ever heard of Bill Clinton? Compare his failed real estate deal and the ensuing five year, 100 investigator, $50M RW witch-hunt to anything that has happened during the Bush admin.
Anybody who has any common sense or sense of decently can tell that the Republicans got away with murder and grand theft, literally, while the Democrats were held to a drastically higher standard.-
14%
Pecossam11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lurch, you forgot that Bill Clinton's successor, who was Governor Clinton's Lieutenant Governor (after Slick Willy broke his word to the Arkansas voters that he wouldn't run for President if he was re-elected), that Governor Jim Guy Tucker was indeed convicted for his part in this "failed real estate deal". Having lived in Arkansas during that period, I am well aware that the MSM did everything in their power to cover for "the man from Hope". Also, if you will recall, Mrs. Clinton (failed universal health care maven) HID her subpoenaed Rose Law Firm billing records until the Congressional investigation expired, at which time said records miraculously re-appeared. If Susan McDougal would have "sang", BOTH Bill and Hillary would have been guests of the "Hotel Many Bars". Whitewater was about the looting of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan and many other shenanigans of the Clintonites. Jim McDougal, Susan's husband, kept his mouth shut, even after being convicted and sentenced to prison, because both he and his wife, Susan, expected some considerable compensation; either a pardon and/or a pay-off. Their other options were not as palatable----a LETHAL bout of the "Arkansas Flu", or in the case of some Arkansas State Policemen, the "Arkansas Blue Flu".
Reply
Hillary's astounding futures trade/commodity markets deal ("investing" $1,000.00 and reaping $100,000.00) was due to the following: There were some vacancies on the Arkansas Agricultural Board and Tyson Foods (can you say chicken nuggets?) coveted a seat on said board. The $1,000.00 Hillary "invested" was handled by Tyson Corporation's attorney (his name escapes me at the moment). Tyson Foods (Don Tyson) got their board position and Hillary got her PAYOFF!
No, Lurch, "the ensuing five year, 100 investigator, $50M RW witch-hunt" was anything but a WITCH- HUNT. People were silenced in various ways. I had my own run-in with the Clinton Machine, and was warned by my State Representative and a prominent State Senator to "let it go". When I contacted CNN during the first Presidential Debates, they were not interested. There are many like myself. I even had contact with Special Prosecutor Starr's office on this. Please remember, Lurch, I WAS THERE and was directly affected. If you are interested, I can give you more information about the Clinton Machine, if you wish to hear it with an OPEN MIND.-
100%
hamy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't care about Clinton. He was shady, but he was competent. Bush was neither. At least Clinton did his job and did it while getting serviced in the oval office. He did his job. All of the things that you are talking about didn't directly relate to his presidency and weren't a conflict of interest (in my mind) where he personally benefitted through his job.
Reply
Bush and Cheney both have personally benefitted from their jobs. They have caused the deaths of thousands and cannot handle any crisis. They have failed at domestic issues, their foreign policies are attrocious. They handled every thing that came their way wrong.
So Clinton may have done some things that were a little bit shady but at least my stock portfolio looked great. Bush inspires nothing but fear in the average American.
I hope that they learned their lesson.-
0%
Pecossam11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, hamy, Bill Clinton did his job as President so well that we had 911 visited upon us. "How?", you ask? Well, Osama bin Laden (I trust I'm spelling this creature's name correctly) explained it best when he cited our running away in Somalia after the "Black Hawk Down" incident, where Bill put our troops in a position where we did not have our own armored forces but had to rely instead on Pakistan's help. I'm not denigrating that help, it was indeed welcome, but that is not the point. The point is a COMPETENT Commander-in-Chief would NEVER put our troops in that situation. After our brave, noble soldiers (remember they were sent there initially by the first President Bush, who landed armor and other support with the main landing force in order to NATION BUILD), It was Clinton's Secretary of Defense, Les Aspen, who withdrew most of that support from our main body. Anyhow the damage was done and we looked a laughing stock to the terrorists and the world. I'm sure one of our bloggers can cite the video of Osama I'm referring to. Weakness, or the perception of weakness, emboldens his type. Also, due to Clinton's Justice Department policy under Janet (the PYRO-WITCH of WACO) Reno and Jamie Gorlick, our various agencies were not permitted to share intelligence on terrorists, and we were to treat them as common criminals in our courts, such as the initial truck bombing of the Twin Towers. If our intelligence agencies would have been allowed to pool their resources, the 911 suicide bombings of the Twin Towers could have, and most probably would have been prevented. Remember, as the GREAT Harry Truman said regarding the Presidency, "The buck stops here." The blame is Clinton's. I do not suffer from the collective amnesia that the MSM and most politicians count on to hoodwink the American people, for "The price of freedom IS eternal vigilance." As far as "Bush and Cheney both have benefited from their jobs.", I'm not saying they haven't. All I'm asking is that we apply equal standards to ALL of our leaders: local, state, national, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, and what have you. Is that too much to ask? Apparently for the MSM it is. As far as Clinton is concerned, he accepted MONEY when he was issuing pardons like they were going out of style, including one to a FUGITIVE from justice, Mark Rich. Did Slick Willy technically break the law? I don't know. But I do KNOW, that like in so many other things he was engaged in. he certainly BENT the law! In summation, President William Jefferson Clinton was anything but COMPETENT. I could add his Serbian and Haitian actions, too. But this is enough for now.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
90%
Lurch11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If he had a D behind his name, he would have been investigated starting eight years ago and both he and Bush would have been thrown out immediately following 9/11.
Reply
If he had a D behind his name, Katrina alone would have been enough to get him impeached, or the Patriot Act, or the Iraq quagmire, or the subprime scandal.
Enough of the hypocrisy. Look at what the cons did to BC over a failed real estate deal years before he got elected. No comparison.-
10%
Codi693411 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Every one of you are naive. How many times have the Dems circled the wagons around other Dems, oh too many to tell! NOW, NOW Obama's people are re-thinking GW's executive orders, because it gives him "flexibility" and we still don't quite know the Gitmo closing yet. He made deals with the left, that he may not be able to keep.
Reply-
-
100%
lfergie81211 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Codi6934
Reply
"How many times have the Dems circled the wagons around other Dems, oh too many to tell! NOW,"
You really want to circle your wagon around someone that has bankrupted this country with a needless war that was used for profiteering from Haliburton by members of this administration, allowed the price of oil to rise 500% so they could cash in on their oil reserves, and went into Iraq to get control of their oil even though that failed?
-
-
100%
freedomofspeech11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lurch, In my opinion, you can add treason to your list. There is no doubt, in my mind, that Cheney was behind the outing of CIA Agent, Valerie Plame. Outing a CIA Agent is a crime against the United States, which is an act of treason according to our Constitution. Scooter Libby was merely the fall guy, it was Dick Cheney that orchestrated the leak.
Reply-
100%
Codi693411 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Richard Armitage should had been asked more questions about what he said to Novak. How many classifiied operations have been leaked from DoD and DoS with NO investigation at all?? And you want to talk about crimes against the U.S.?
Reply-
-
Neutral
Codi693411 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The only thing they are guilty of is expecting the citizens of the country to rally behind him(GW) after 9-11! I hate to think that people are so peddy that they would compromise classified information because they are mad about the 2000 election.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The smart thing to do would be to indict Cheney and Bush in Indian Country. Seeing as how they're considered soverign nations they would have no problem issuing warrants. Then Cheney and Bush would forever have to avoid traveling through any reservations. Granted those reservations represent less than 4% of what the Indians used to be caretakers over, but that's still part of the country where those criminals could be arrested.
Reply-
-
100%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As far as I'm concerned, if the Indians can fleece the white man of every penny stolen from the Indians and then some, that's great. Whether it be through sucking in a bunch of lonely people into gambling dens or not. Indians should be able to do whatever the hell Indians want in the small bits of what's left of Indian Country.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not so sure. Cheney and Gonzalez thus far have only been indicted, not convicted. Pardoning them at this point would mean they were guilty, since the President must specify to which offenses the pardon applies.
Reply
Also, holding on to an indictment until after Obama takes office would not only be dirty pool, I believe it would constitute an ethical violation.-
-
100%
Will131311 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.
Reply-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, but issuing a pardon definitely means Cheney and/or Gonzalez DID commit offenses. The President can't issue a preemptive 'just-in-case' pardon. Well, at least no President ever has tried such a thing.
Reply
Also, the pardon power only applies to the extent of the executive's jurisdiction. In the case of the President, he/she can only pardon offenders for Federal crimes, which is what Ford meant by crimes 'against the United States'. Ford's pardon didn't clean up the Nixon motorcade DC parking tickets, or that time in 1972 when rolled a bum in Tallahassee.
So unless this case is being brought as a Federal crime, Bush can't do dick.-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...there was also some constitutional questions as to whether or not Ford's pardon of Nixon was legal."
Reply
I was wondering about that. I don't think it's Constitutional for a President to pardon someone for something they "...may have committed". I think awareness of the offense(s) is implicit, and the wording left open blanket immunity if other infractions came to light.
I've been reading up on this and apparently it IS possible for a President to pardon himself, then resign. That was one of the options Haig presented to Nixon.-
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
89%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah, but didn't Cheney claim in 2007 to be part of the Legislative branch, not the Executive? Wait, that was modified to mean since the VP office has duties in BOTH branches, it was not subject to the rules governing EITHER branch. Later, his Chief of Staff claimed the VP office belonged to NEITHER the Executive nor the Legislative branch. But back in 2002, Cheney claimed executive privilege regarding not disclosing the content of his meeting with Enron.
Reply
Boy! I wish I could pick and choose which rules apply and when they apply. -
-
-
-
100%
NoWayMan11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
innocent peole can't be pardoned, and these two are innocent until proven guilty. which means Bush can't pardon them unless they are found guilty before he leaves office. which won't happen.
Reply
after jan 20, these two clowns can't be pardoned and can't use the ridiculous, wholly unAmerican, I'm-above-the-law excuse of executive privilige.-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"innocent people can't be pardoned, and these two are innocent until proven guilty. which means Bush can't pardon them unless they are found guilty before he leaves office."
Reply
Truly innocent people cannot be pardoned, yes, but (here's where it gets semantically sticky) 'not-yet-found-guilty' people CAN be pardoned. In 1866 the Supreme Court "...held that the scope of the pardon power "is unlimited, with the exception stated [ impeachment]. It extends to every offence [sic] known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.""
http://www.answers.com/topic/pardon
Technically, I could shoot a guy and the President could issue a pardon even before the cops showed up.
Ford pardoned Nixon, even though he had not been convicted of anything. Someone who is indicted can apply for and be granted Presidential pardon. It is basically an admission of guilt., but the guilt is expunged from public record as if it had never happened.
Fortunately, the Presidential Pardon applies to specified offenses, not anything ever committed by a particular person (I don't think even God could restore Cheney's criminal 'virginity'). Also, the president cannot pardon himself.-
-
-
100%
jaspersneed11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It depends on the sandwich. A truly good ham sandwich -- thin-sliced, hickory-smoked on toasted white, with fresh lettuce, vine-ripened tomato, a slice of baby Swiss and/or Jarlsberg, and precisely the right amount of mayonnaise -- will likely escape indictment. Your prepackaged deli-counter sandwiches, on the other hand, forget about it. Indict, try and convict. Guilty as charged. What kind of ham sandwich is Cheney? The answer is obvious. He's been "prepackaged" since the Nixon administration, with a corrupt ideology of chickenhawk militarism coupled with plutocratic fascism that is long past its coded expiration date. Hopefully this tepid little indictment for "organized criminal activity" is just the beginning.
Reply -
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"A good prosecutor can get any grand jury to indict even a ham sandwich."
Reply
I guarantee you, indicting the VP is ENTIRELY different from a ham sandwich. I seriously doubt a grand jury in Texas is somehow in the pocket of Democrat influences.
-
-
33%
Endoscopy11 months, 3 weeks ago
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You forget your own history."
Reply
You're being condescending. My post clearly stated the President could issue pardon even before an indictment. Ford was in an impossible situation, he could issue a pardon and 'let the nation move on', leaving a criminal unpunished, or he could have let the legal proceedings move forward, distracting the nation from addressing far more serious issues. He would be blamed either way.
-
-
-
-
100%
epiphannyy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe it will take the World Court to ever hold anyone from the Bush administration accountable for the crimes committed over the past 8yrs. Since Bush can and will pardon every "buddy" currently under indictment, as well as those who were already convicted of certain crimes (like those involved in the Valerie Plame outting), there is little that our courts can or will do. What is the point when the pardon pen is so prolific?
Reply
Its nice to see someone finally trying to do something, but I fear it will be made moot the day Bush leaves office.-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There was an interesting book out recently regarding prosecuting Bush for murder. He makes a case for placing jurisdiction for bringing charges into the hands of State Attorney's General, bypassing Congressional hearings altogether.
Reply
-
-
86%
antibrainwasher11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Welcome to the wild west. In 50 years, they'll make movies about the shoot 'em up early days of the 21st.
Reply
How is it that Cheney has any ownership of freaking prisons in Texas????????? Is that possible?
Wait, what am I saying, we are talking about perhaps the most vicious freak ever to hold public office, who thinks nothing of commiting the worst war crime ever in the history of the country.-
83%
antibrainwasher11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, theyshould make movies about just how stupid you have to be, blinded by hate and religious zealtry, to vote for this regime not once but twice.
Reply
How long will it take to recover from the damage these ideologues did to the country? It might not be possible, now that China is investing over 3 times what we do in science and research and technology.
Repeat, China is investing over 3 times what we do in science and technological research, and their top research universities are approaching Cal Tec and MIT quickly, as is the universities in India. For many Asians, harvard is the third choice.
And 47% of americans think creationist Sara Palin is the future. Welcome to america the soon to be third world, full of religious morons. -
30%
Endoscopy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
antibrainwasher you are pathetic in your hatred of them. Obviously you did not read the story but just ranted. Cheney in a blind trust owned shares in a mutual fund that held shares in the prison. The prosecutor lost the election and is going out with a bang indicting lots of public people and his successor will then have to deal with the mess he leaves behind.
Reply
-
-
23%
Endoscopy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
This will go nowhere. The president and vice president both always put their holdings in a blind trust. They do not know what they hold from one day to the next. The money that is directly invested is in a mutual fund.
How many of you own that same mutual fund. If you do then you all should be indicted as well. Shame on you horrendous people investing in a mutual fund that invests in this kind of thing. You should know better. LOL
That prosecutor knows better. It is a political stunt. This proves the contention that a good prosecutor can get an indictment against a ham sandwich.-
100%
Progressive11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The president and vice president both always put their holdings in a blind trust. They do not know what they hold from one day to the next. The money that is directly invested is in a mutual fund."
Reply
Not true:
http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/value/archive/200...-
22%
Endoscopy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
You missed the line that referred to another story.
See Are Dick Cheney's Money Managers Betting on Bad News?
When they went into office there was a big deal made out of the fact that the money would be in a blind trust so they would not be able to be accused of doing anything to enhance their investments.
Try again.
-
-
-
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
75%
Tcaros11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We need to restore an old American value. That value is making "crime not pay." That is not allowing criminals to be executors of our laws.
Reply
Gonzalez routinely short-circuited due process by failing to prosecute. He loosely interpreted the Constitution to ignore individual rights guaranteed therein.
I can see no better a statement by the next administration than re-instating our institution of justice. -
-
80%
orndorffter11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We have not heard it all yet, before this is over we well see more people in Washigtion that has committed crimes and we are going to see alot go to jail for the crimes they have done.if it we"er you or I we would be takeing in and have the book throwed at us, and we would do the time. Just because they are members of our govrmet staff makes them no differnt then one of us. If we pay for our crimes then they to should pay for their crimes,makes no differnt who that person is. they already put the shaft to us. Why shouldnt they have to pay?
Reply -
-
20%
Endoscopy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ALL LIBS ON THIS STORY ARE PATHETIC.
Reply
Read the following from the story and then go fly a kite.
---------------------------------
Several other related indictments were brought against a host of public officials in what one lawyer called a circus act by a local prosecutor seeking revenge in his final weeks in office.
"We look forward to having the opportunity to have an independent, competent prosecutor review the facts, and are confident that once that happens these baseless charges will be dismissed," said Michael Cowen, who represents Texas state senator Eddie Lucio.-
67%
chuck-the-canuck11 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
100%
chuck-the-canuck11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, this is the Canadian propeller. Don't let the door hit you in your malodorous behind on your way out.
Reply
Can't hold a club, no thumbs.
We do have one thing in common. We both have an aszhole. I use mine to excrete wastes , but you appear to use yours to do your thinking. Be sure to check the bowl before you flush. It appears that you can't afford to lose anymore brain cells.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ellsworth-tooheyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
29%
william-sire11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can't believe there are any comments on this story at all. However I have to give this comment the award for being most pertinent and worthy of the article:
Reply
"BREAKING NEWS New York Jury indictes Ham Sandwich, the indictment came after two weeks of delibaration following allegations of a conspiracy to use mayo instead of mustard....BREAKING NEWS."
Thank you ellsworth-toohey-
ellsworth-tooheyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user3 Replies
-
ellsworth-tooheyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
14%
Lincoln8511 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They lost because McCain wasn't a true conservative. Bush isn't either. However, Bush and Cheney will never stand trial. The elections over, you should be celebrating instead of looking for vengeance. If that is ok?, then I guess Clinton should go up also for killing innocent people in an iraqi asparin factory. Its ok if you support that president, if you don't support the president it is war crimes. That is truly pathetic and nowhere even close to intellectual honesty.
Reply-
100%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think they're fixating on the fact that the American public was intentionally lied to in order to start a war having nothing to do with 9/11 so that Cheney could funnel money into the company he used to work for through no bid contracts. Or it could be the expose and endangerment of a large number of CIA agents (a treasonous act). I'm sure the list can go on and on if you actually pay attention.
Reply -
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
0%
ningyo11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this is the sort of prosecution that created the old saw.."you can idict a ham sandwich"..this has about as much substance and is just a grandstanding prosecutor putting on a show for his hopeful voters in a future bid for office..shameless
Reply -
100%
bamababy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps, and I say perhaps, this is a beginning of reckoning for the Bush/Cheney reign of terror upon the world. One can hope. I think the scope of their crimes has yet to be understood completely by our society. I hope, I really hope they DO have to answer for what they've brought upon the world by their actions. I think it's pick and choose when it comes to prosecuting and getting convictions however. Unfortunately, I beleive our justice system needs an over haul. Money and power have a way of influencing otherwise rational human beings. Not that Bush or Cheney are rational, look at the last eight years. BTW, in regards to the "messiah comment earlier, We never claimed President Elect was the messiah, that came from ya'll. He is inheriting a plethera of issues from the current administration and it will take years to unravel the damage done here and abroad. The man is very smart and we must give him the room he needs to chnge our current situation. We all have a part to play here. Any how, when Obama closes Gitmo, perhaps we could put Bush? Cheney and Co. there for a little waterboarding fun, ya think?
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.