It's probably pointless for me to state yet again that I'm not some hate filled vessel on a mission to destroy all Republicans, the United States, Christianity, unborn children, all rich people, or to become the second coming of Karl Marx. I say this because I'm just trying to get the point across that you're just having a conversation with me, Reg, not some caricature of an "evil liberal" that the talk show hosts and foaming at the mouth authors have dreamed up. The other thing is, I'm trying to talk about a specific situation, not the rather wide range of topics you touch upon in your reply. If you want to discuss protecting the United States border, freedom of speech, political correctness, the ACLU, rape, crime rates, illegal immigration, or manipulation of the media, we can certainly do that and it would be best to have a different thread for each topic. These have nothing to do with anything I have said so far or what we are discussing. In fact, and it's why I keep thinking you get everything from radio talk shows or Ann Coulter novels, they are the issues that talk radio and the Coulter-O'Reilly types are stuck on repeat on. You just need to throw in "liberal judges", abortion, George Soros, "liberal elitism", "liberal college professors", call the teachers union a "terrorist group", state Democrats want to take all your money and give it to worthless no good welfare cases, and you'll have pretty much covered all of their narrow range of ideas. They repeat that stuff ad nauseum and believe if they say it enough people will believe it.
Right now though, it's just you and me and whoever on the board here bothers to read this and add their two cents. That's it. George Soros is not sitting here with me as I type and I don't hate you or think you're an idiot.
Crimes have been committed. It's just the tip. You're salivating and it shows. Carl Rove did this and said that. Cheney is involved. This is a fucking repeat of the Valerie Plane fiasco that no one except the far left gave a hoot about. I've said it before and it bears repeating. Show me something that fucking matters about this thing. What matters Reg. What?
Ok, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, found guilty. Mitchell Wade, guilty. Scooter Libby, guilty.
I am quite limited in what I can say because you seem to think that all news sources have a liberal bias so if I post articles from the Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, or LA Times you will ignore them. You seem to think that a news article is somehow the same as an opinion piece or what gets said on a talk show which is also opinion based and driven. You want me to provide evidence of there being a problem but then you reject any evidence as biased.
So in case you haven't noticed, and I guess you have not, I've been pretty careful what I posted in relation to this issue. For the most part I've pointed you to what your government has said or done...no reporter in between to add anything...the problem is this means you have to read it and figure out it's meaning.
Check these:
This link will take you to Carol Lam's indictment of Randy "Duke" Cunningham. It's not an article about it, it's the actual indictment. Most people will find this a long and tedious read but it has it's payoffs. She's very exacting, she notes not only what they paid for their hookers but what they ate and that's not even the heart of the indictment. I'd say Ms. Lam is a very thorough prosecuter and likely that's why Rove wanted to remove her.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/021307wilkesmichaelsindict.pdf
You can read this letter from members of Congress and House Judiciary Committee that details parts of where Ms. Lams investigations were going and their request to have her continue on her work. Please understand, this is not a news article, it's an internal letter from our representatives to the Attorney General. It's a statement of facts and a request.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Alberto Gonzales U.S. Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
Last week, Congressman Emanuel sent you a letter requesting that former U.S. Attorney in San Diego Carol Lam be appointed as outside counsel to finish her work on the Duke Cunningham Case. Unfortunately, your office has not yet responded to that letter.
Two days ago, Lam's investigation continued to bear fruit as a federal grand jury charged Kyle "Dusty" Foggo and Brent Wilkes with at least 11 felony counts related to their involvement with Cunningham. As Elana Schor's article in The Hill yesterday points out, "Justice Department officials have praised the Cunningham probe as the linchpin of their growing pursuit of public corruption cases, yet prosecutor Lam is nonetheless slated to step down[Thursday] after the Bush administration cited unspecified 'performance' issues in requesting her resignation late last year. Six other U.S. attorneys, several involved in ongoing corruption investigations, were dismissed at about the same time."
As you know, of those seven fired U.S. Attorneys, Lam was not the only one investigating sitting public officials before being dismissed. For example, Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona were dismissed while their offices were conducting probes concerning elected officials.
Schor's article also notes that Deputy U.S. Attorney General Paul McNulty was scheduled to brief members of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday with information on the decisions to dismiss the U.S. Attorneys. During last week's public Senate hearing, Deputy U.S. Attorney General McNulty confirmed that Bud Cummins III, the former U.S. attorney for Eastern Arkansas, was dismissed without cause to install Timothy Griffin, a former aide to White House adviser Karl Rove.
Carol Lam's indictments of Foggo and Wilkes underscore the importance of last week's request and the need for an explanation of why these diligent public servants were dismissed. It is vital that U.S. Attorneys be able to prosecute wrongdoing free from political pressure. We are pleased that the Department of Justice has also agreed to brief members of the House Judiciary Committee on the dismissals of Carol Lam and other U.S. Attorneys. We look forward to further details regarding the date for that briefing and your response regarding the request to appoint Carol Lam as an outside counsel to finish the Cunningham and related investigations.
Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. We look forward to hearing from your office.
Sincerely,
Rahm Emanuel Member of Congress
Howard Berman Member of Congress
John Conyers Chairman, Judiciary Committee
Linda Sánchez Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
-------------------------------------------------------
Ok, let me make sure I have this right...people here present you with how the Republicans voted on issues surrounding this case, copies of the indictments, the fact that there are several ongoing investigations some begun by Republicans like Carol Lam, a list of people who have already been found guilty, a variety of evidential documents implicating members of the senior Bush White House staff, the fact that the White House is refusing to hand over some information and is hiding all communication with the Justice Department and documents related to this case for the 16 days leading up to the firings, the fact that they do not under any circumstance want to testify under oath about something they supposedly did not do, etc, etc, etc... These are fucking vague genralities here Reg. Tell me something specific. Something that matters. Hell after the Valerie Plane thing I think the Dems would investigate and indict someone farting in the street.
I don't understand what's vague about a 92-4 vote. That's not vague that a very clear statement. That's a clear indication of a lack of support for the president, the Attorney General and the Patriot Act. The vote to subpoena was also not vague...I'm giving you simple numbers in these cases not an article by somebody you think is a liberal reporter. Missing 16 days worth of documents and e-mails is not vague. Refusing to testify about something you say you did not do is not vague. Randy Duke Cunningham was anything but vague. Porter Goss quickly leaving the CIA was not vague. Dust Foggo the number 3 at the CIA getting indicted was not vague. Karl Rove's e-mails were not vague in expressing an interest in getting rid of attorneys prosecuting Republicans. Patrick Fitzgerald being rated one of the best and most respected attorneys in the country by the Bushco Boys in 2002 was not vague...them changing his rating to poor in 2005 because he was prosecuting Republicans was not vague.
I really don't know what you accept as evidence, Pat, these are all just simple facts. I don't have to add anything to them to make them any more salient.
