Letters to the Editor
-
What's that noise? It sounds like a tiny insect scratching at the palace door. Someone get the pestacide.
Conyers' eloquent words are lost on loyal party hacks.
-
Article of Impeachment number 74
The President, through his political advisor, willfully subverted the Department of Justice by usurpring the power to hire and fire attorneys in order to obstruct justice and engage in malicious prosecution for political gain.
-
How many smoking guns are needed?
This just in from the Seattle Times (the reference here is to John McKay, the former U.S. attorney for Western Washington):
- - - - - -
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003699882_webmckayforum09m.html
McKay said he began to have concerns about politics entering the Justice Department in early 2005, when Gonzales addressed all of the country's U.S. attorneys in Scottsdale, Ariz., shortly after he took over as attorney general.
"His first speech to us was a 'you work for the White House' speech," McKay recalled. " 'I work for the White House, you work for the White House.' "
McKay said he thought at the time, "He couldn't have meant that speech," given the traditional independence of U.S. Attorneys. "It turns out he did."
He looked around the meeting room and caught the eyes of his colleagues, who gave him looks of surprise at Gonzales' remarks. "We were stunned at what he was saying."
- - - - - -
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- we need to discard the outdated oath of office taken by members of the executive branch, from cabinet secretaries on down the line. These people obviously are expected to show first allegiance to the President; the country and our Constitution just as obviously are secondary at best. Let's be honest about it, OK?
-
OK, so this matters. Got it.
Could someone PLEEEEZE tell me, then, why it seems NOT to matter that NONE of the people who were or might have been or are alleged to have been involved in these firings was the Preznit of the United States?
...at whose pleasure these folks supposedly serve?
Seriously - why doesn't it matter that the DOJ seems to have usurped the powers of the Office of the President, without his knowledge or cooperation? At least that's what DOJ and the WH are telling us. If we choose to believe them, isn't there an even bigger issue at hand than what now seems evident?
I promise, if just one reasonably well-informed person will answer this question, I'll stop asking it.
-
Funny that John Conyers would be anyone's spokesperson.
The guy is a moonbat. Running for a term as Mayor of Detroit, Conyers was once gently rounded up by the local constabulary and escorted to a quiet place after they found him half-clothed on a median strip talking to the traffic.
He was also missing without explanation for a period of days in the 1980's, leading to widepsread speculation that his behavior was, say, chemically-influenced.
Talk about nasty, bomb-throwing partisan hacks. Conyers might actually have beaten Dennis Kucinich to the "impeachment" stage when Conyers held a series of kangaroo court hearings on the subject of an impeachment. Before he was again gently, quietly rounded up, this time by Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants instead of local police officers.
Here's what Conyers said that actually makes some sense:
"I am sure we agree -- you and I -- that any hint or indication that the department may not be acting fairly and impartially in enforcing the nation's laws, or in choosing the nation's law enforcers, has ramifications far beyond the department itself, and casts doubt upon every action or inaction your office and your employees take."
And of course in this manufactured "scandal", what is lacking is "any hint" that any law was broken, any proscution was foiled, any unlawful prosecution was undertaken, or that any unqualified person undertook any law enforcement responsibility. So much for "scandal."
There is a reason that savvy senior Democrats look upon any John Conyers-led initiative with the utmost fear; it is because their memories of Conyers-as-Marion Barry are all too real.
-
Wow, Elephantman, don't be shy!
Looks like you're no slouch at name-calling and bomb-throwing yourself. But as we see time and again with Repubilicans, when they have no case, they always revert to character assasination. And also as in this case, racist character assisantion. Bravo!
-
A Tenuous Position
And of course in this manufactured "scandal", what is lacking is "any hint" that any law was broken, any proscution was foiled, any unlawful prosecution was undertaken, or that any unqualified person undertook any law enforcement responsibility.
You can repeat a bald faced lie as many times as you like, but you can't make it true and you can't make it seem sensible in the face of the fact that what you wrote is plainly and obviously false to anybody who's been paying attention.
I guess you just have to keep counting on the fact that most of the public doesn't pay attention and so can't adequately judge you and your party's lies.
-
Elephantman doesn't like Conyers...
...probably because he's another decorated military/war veteran democrat. I know, I know, he doesn't deserve the war medals and he was hiding behind some republican in a fox hole in Korea and he's a traitor and blah, blah, blah. We all know the drill well enough by now.