Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Tell that to the judge!
Can't, he's fully involved himself in the venture of Capitalism and practically sold me off to a private prison for talking about someone on the internet.
No doubt a lot of dirty stuff is going on in this administration. This scandal certainly warrants a Special Prosecutor be appointed. I can't believe this hasn't happened yet. If he were a Republican President,i'm pretty sure these Hopey Changey nutters would be screeching for this. Instead they're all desperately trying to spin things for this President. If the Democrats refuse to appoint a Special Prosecutor,the Republicans will have to regain some power in Congress by way of coming Elections. They can then begin to investigate this scandal properly. I'm afraid nothing will be investigated until the Republicans do regain some power in Congress. It is what it is. Make 2010 count people.
Why would something that breaks no law require a "special prosecutor" to be appointed?
Wow...sucks to be you I guess....but don't let anyone else in on that.
Two senior Pennsylvania judges have been sentenced to seven years in prison for taking bribes from juvenile detention centers -- in exchange for the bribes, the judges turned in guilty verdicts for the teens who appeared before them and sent them to juvie, thus enriching the operators of the kiddy gulag. For this, the judges received $2.6 million in kickbacks.
One teen was given a 90-day sentence for having parodied a school administrator online. Such unwarranted detentions left "both children and parents feeling bewildered, violated and traumatized," center lawyers said.
Sestak's comments may be hearsay, but they are evidence - and admissible.
Ironic that many of the administration's defenders have said in this thread, very cynically, that the suspected bribery is nothing more than politics as usual.
Doesn't make it right.
Like I said previously, the Hatch Act exempts the POTUS and VPOTUS. So if Obama did this, then he's not going anywhere. Though I'm sure the GOP will start up another investigation if they gain the house in November. Maybe they can come up with a little more this time when they spend $70 million dollars of taxpayer money.
Not from the title 18 laws that had been posted before today. The pres has no license to bribe.
Not from the title 18 laws that had been posted before today. The pres has no license to bribe.
From what I saw from Vast, it says otherwise. Like I said previously, it's all speculation. Reagan did something similar as well. So this is nothing brand new, but it also doesn't make it right if it did occur. Also like I previously, the POTUS is going to see just how much muscle he has in his own party.
Though I'm also of the opinion that those in Congress should wear those jumpsuits in session like they do in Nascar with the Cars so we can see just who exactly is "sponsoring" them.
Not from the title 18 laws that had been posted before today. The pres has no license to bribe.
From what I saw from Vast, it says otherwise. Like I said previously, it's all speculation. Reagan did something similar as well. So this is nothing brand new, but it also doesn't make it right if it did occur. Also like I previously, the POTUS is going to see just how much muscle he has in his own party.
Though I'm also of the opinion that those in Congress should wear those jumpsuits in session like they do in Nascar with the Cars so we can see just who exactly is "sponsoring" them.
I say get all persons involved before a panel and ask them some questions...what harm coud come from that? As I previously stated if Obama, Sestak, Specter and now apparently Clinton all come clean I will support any conclusion arrived at. It is the FAIR and proper thing to do.
I guess the liberals need to change their sayings from the 60's when questioning your government was "cool".
"Question REPUBLICANS only...DEMOCRATS can do no wrong."
"Only trust Democrats...they are the only innocent among us."
I say get all persons involved before a panel and ask them some questions...what harm coud come from that? As I previously stated if Obama, Sestak, Specter and now apparently Clinton all come clean I will support any conclusion arrived at. It is the FAIR and proper thing to do.
I say get all persons involved before a panel and ask them some questions...what harm coud come from that? As I previously stated if Obama, Sestak, Specter and now apparently Clinton all come clean I will support any conclusion arrived at. It is the FAIR and proper thing to do.
If it's anything like the 9/11 Panel, would be a waste of time. I don't mind them being asked questions though. However, I can understand and respect why they all lawyered up however. I know if I was certainly accused of anything, I'd lawyer up before talking to any sort of authority. That's if I was innocent or guilty mind you.
Lawyering up is fine....I just want the whole story out so we can move on.
Lawyering up is fine....I just want the whole story out so we can move on.
Indeed. It will come out eventually. However, I don't get why people think Obama is just going to come out and start spilling details. This is a sensitive issue, with serious legal implications. Anything they say, even if they miss one detail, could hurt their credibility entirely. Or even phrasing something the wrong way.
Like I said before though, I'm pretty sure Obama and especially Clinton wouldn't do anything without first making sure it's legal. I doubt both men who would want to ruin their legacies (or Clinton further if you want to try and make the argument) or even Obama losing his presidency over a single seat. It's insanity.
I agree....but you cannot dispell the fact that there may be others around him with aspirations of power. A lot of local, city political practices are legal even though they may seem inappropriate...when you bring that to the halls of Congress and then the WH...that's where the problem is....that's why there are laws in place to prevent such things from happening....something that VLWC doesn't seem to grasp with his flawed interpretation of his cited statutes and Democratic Underground spin he's put on it.
I agree....but you cannot dispell the fact that there may be others around him with aspirations of power. A lot of local, city political practices are legal even though they may seem inappropriate...when you bring that to the halls of Congress and then the WH...that's where the problem is....that's why there are laws in place to prevent such things from happening....something that VLWC doesn't seem to grasp with his flawed interpretation of his cited statutes and Democratic Underground spin he's put on it.
The only person around Obama who I would think would go through with such a thing would be Rahm. I have a feeling if he did do it, he may of done it by himself at that. That's only because of what I read about Rahm, not that I'm saying he did it. Like I said, it's all speculation. I just don't think Obama is going to risk his entire Presidency over a single seat. It just makes no sense on any level. No amount of arrogance can make one think that's a good idea.
I agree....but if he did do it I don't think getting Bill Clinton to fall on his sword to protect him is a good thing...sooner or later it will all come out and his legacy will be ruined for all time....and for the record...I never get a good feeling when I see or hear Emmanuel talk...there's just something about that guy that makes me think "untrustworthy". I wouldn't be surprised to see that guy gone in a short while.
FOXNews.com - White House Report on Sestak Job Offer Raises More Legal Questions, Critics Say"Assurances by the Obama White House that no laws were broken are like the Nixon White House promising it did nothing illegal in connection with Watergate," they wrote in the letter. "Clearly, an independent investigation is necessary to determine once and for all what really happened."
