Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ daleyrocks
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It [U.S. v. Nixon] did, however, say it would weigh heavily on protecting privelege against the public's right to know in the absence of allegations of misconduct or other wrongdoing.
No, it didn't.
Cheers
-
@ daleyrocks
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gonzales should have punted on questions instead of attempting answers.
You misspelled "pled the Fifth" and "lied".
Cheers,
-
@ daleyrocks
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... a ravening Democrat herd that wants to make the administration look bad even at the coast of dragging the reputations and careers of the fired attorneys through the mud.
It was Dubya who fired them ... for "performance reasons".... Just to make it perfectly clear.
Cheers,
-
@ Titus Pullo
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A key distinction in Nixon and Clinton's cases is that they were investigations of actual alleged crimes (breaking and entering among many in Nixon's case, sexual harrasment in Clinton's). There's no alleged crime in this case. The president actually doesn't have to give any reason for firing someone he appointed.
And here we're looking at possible obstruction of justice. It ain't just the coverup, it's the maladministration big honchos in on the games.
But FWIW, sexual harassment is not a crime. Paula Jones's case was a civil case.
Cheers,
-
@ Titus Pullo
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And they were replaced in a naked act of neoptism, replacing loyal employees with hack friends of the Clintons.
Oh, you mean like firing Cummings in Arkansas to make way for Rove's woefully unqualified protege?
If we're out to get hackery and nepotism, the Dubya maladministration is in real deep doo-doo. (witness the incompetent hacks they sent to Iraq, which is part of the reason we're in the bad place we are).
Cheers,
-
@ Titus Pullo
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Paula Jones' case was a civil case, but Clinton was also accused of violating a sexual harrasment law that, irony or ironies, he himself had signed.
Yeah, and I accused you of being ane axe-murdering pederast. Guess it all evens out, eh?
But FWIW, your "facts" are wrong. You're spouting RW "talking points" crapola that's just nonsense. What Clinton did was sign the legislation for the new FRE amendments (which allowed past criminal behaviour to be used in civil and criminal cases; FRE Rules 412-415), but that's hardly a criminal law. Not to mention, outside of flakes like you, no one charged Clinton with criminal sexual harassment ... for the good reason that there was no such law covering such.
Now take your "talking points" and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.
Cheers,
-
@ daleyrocks
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Arne, do you remember the Independent Counsel in Travelgate basically saying Hildebeast was guilty of obstruction of justice in his conclusion.
No. Because, perhaps excepting within the cloistered confines of CPAC and Federalist Society conventions, he never said anything like that.
Cheers,
-
@ Titus Pullo
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He plays dumb when it's convenient. Here's the NY Times on Hillary and Travelgate from Oct. 2000:
The independent counsel Robert Ray has concluded that Hillary Rodham Clinton was ''factually false'' in sworn testimony about her role in the firing of seven members of the White House travel staff in 1993. At the same time he has concluded that he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that her statements were ''knowingly false,'' and therefore will not pursue criminal charges against her. Judging from the voluminous public record, Mr. Ray's decision to drop the case is legally sound. Judging from the same record, his characterization of Mrs. Clinton's account of her role in the matter also seems on the mark.
Facts. They're amazing things.
Here's the conversation of record:
[daleyrocks]: Arne, do you remember the Independent Counsel in Travelgate basically saying Hildebeast was guilty of obstruction of justice in his conclusion.
[Arne]: No. Because, perhaps excepting within the cloistered confines of CPAC and Federalist Society conventions, he never said anything like that.
Sad to say, but "knowingly" is an essential element of the crime of perjury. Nothing about OOJ at all there.
Facts. They're amasing things.
Cheers,
-
@ Titus Pullo
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, if you redefine words, I guess you're right. But in fact Ray said something very much like Hillary obstructed justice, to wit, her testimony was "factually incorrect"....
I already explained that. I stand by my previosu claim. Perjury requires "knowingly". And OOJ requires "corrupt" intent, although OOJ is not as directly relevant here. That's the actual law ... as opposed to what you want it to be (unless it's a Republican in the crosshairs).
Cheers,
-
@ Titus Pullo
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ha ha, you guys are so funny. I never used the word "perjury" in my posts, and yet you go to such great lengths to show that Hillary was never charged with purjury.
Quite true, you didn't say "perjury". But that's the relevant crime, no? "daleyrocks" used "OOJ". But as I pointed out that requires "corrupt" intent.
Also, as pointed out, there were no indictments (much less convictions) for any crimes here. This is no Libby case. Starting to get the picture?
Say, whatcha think of Griles peading guilty? Another high maladministration official guilty of a felony....
Cheers,
-
Glenn [from the post]
[Read the article: Congressional oversight is a linchpin of how our democracy works]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is one thing and one thing only distinguishing this U.S. attorneys scandal from all of the others over the past six years: namely, because Democrats now have subpoena power and seem willing to use it, the administration is forced to disclose actual evidence and documents -- rather than simply issue unscrutinized and uninvestigated denials of wrongdoing -- and that evidence demonstrates that their claims are false.
It's not just that they're getting (hopefully) better answers with subpoena power, it's that they're asking real questions to begin with, and some people are starting to pay attention. The Republican Congress prior to November 2006 was more interested in whitewashing maladministration criminality and incompetence than in doing their job....
When Democrats asked questions before November, the Republicans consigned them to broom closets in the basement, and the maladministration just ignored them. The good times are over.
Cheers,