SubpoenOWNED

[glockmail]

it is really quite funny....I have the pathetic sexuallly perverted loser glockshemale on my IGNORE LIST and he keeps trying to give me negative reputation points...but they never take, because I am ignoring him.... but he keeps trying...to no effect. Literally, he has tried to post fifteen negative reputation posts on me in the past week...

what a loser!

Keep rolling and you'll get shit in your mouth like Cl-Taurus did.

Stop whining about your points. Your butt buddies will give you 2 or 3 pos points for every neg I give you. Because that's what butt buddies do.

 

[maineman]

it is really quite funny....I have the pathetic sexuallly perverted loser glockshemale on my IGNORE LIST and he keeps trying to give me negative reputation points...but they never take, because I am ignoring him.... but he keeps trying...to no effect. Literally, he has tried to post fifteen negative reputation posts on me in the past week...

what a loser!

he just tried again....he may be stupid, but he sure is persistent (and stupid)

 

[pegwinn]

The plot thickens...

Apparently, an aide of Alberto Gonzalez is refusing to testify in front of the Senate panel heading up the investigation into the US attorney sackings. The aide, <a href=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/26/ap/politics/main2610102.shtml>Monica Goodling</a>, on the advice of her attorney is refusing to testify on the grounds of the Fifth amendment.

Now, what does she have to say that could be so incriminating, so legally perilous, given that both Alberto Gonzalez and the White House say that nothing really happened in this whole sordid affair beyond miscommunication, poor judgment and mis-handling of how these firings were revealed?

Tut Tut, one isn't supposed to speculate on guilt or innocence when the 5th is invoked. Just because you refuse to testify doesn't mean you are guilty. It just means your attorney doesn't trust you

 

[maineman]

Tut Tut, one isn't supposed to speculate on guilt or innocence when the 5th is invoked. Just because you refuse to testify doesn't mean you are guilty. It just means your attorney doesn't trust you

trust you to do what? tell the truth? if there is no hint of a crime here, why, pray tell, is everyone running so scared? If they did nothing wrong, then they did nothing wrong and they have nothing to worry about...just tell the truth.

 

[red states rule]

trust you to do what? tell the truth? if there is no hint of a crime here, why, pray tell, is everyone running so scared? If they did nothing wrong, then they did nothing wrong and they have nothing to worry about...just tell the truth.

L.A. Times: U.S. Attorney Opposition to Death Penalty a Possible Reason for Firings
Posted by Ken Shepherd on March 26, 2007 - 13:01.
In much of the mainstream media reporting on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the focus has been on stoking a political controversy from the story, ruminating on Alberto Gonzales's shelf life as attorney general, etc.


Largely left by the wayside in mainstream media reporting have been legitimate deviations the fired attorneys exhibited from Bush Justice Department priorities, such as immigration enforcement -- for instance, San Diego-based attorney Carol Lam's prosecution of immigration cases reportedly bothered the decidedly unconservative Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) -- and pushing for the death penalty in capital cases.


It took a while but at least one major media outlet is reporting that a reluctance to pursue the death penalty might have been a factor in at least three of the firings. [continued...]

Today the Los Angeles Times reported that 3 out of 8 fired U.S. attorneys were reluctant to push for the death penalty in capital cases.

The three prosecutors are among eight U.S. attorneys terminated last year in a housecleaning by the Justice Department. Their hesitation over the death penalty was not cited as a reason for their dismissals, but Washington officials have made it clear they have little patience for prosecutors who are not with the program.

Data from the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, which opposes capital punishment, show that there have been 95 federal death penalty trials in the last six years under Ashcroft and Gonzales, compared with 55 during the eight years under the Clinton administration's Atty. Gen. Janet Reno.

Richard Dieter, executive director of the center, said that when Bush came to Washington in 2001, his administration seemed determined not only to toughen the federal death penalty statute but to seek it across the nation — including in places where state laws forbid it, such as Michigan.

As a result, he said, "you see a lot more [capital] cases going to trial, unlike what was happening before, where U.S. attorneys were given some leeway to settle cases or take plea bargains."

Dieter said: "Bush certainly believes in the death penalty, Ashcroft was a fervent believer, and Gonzales was Bush's advisor in Texas, denying all those clemency requests."

Granted, the Times reporters crafted their story with heavy emphasis on liberal death penalty opponents like Dieter who object to the Bush Justice Department's focus on capital punishment. That doesn't take away from the fact that there is evidence that at least some of the fired U.S. attorneys substantially disappointed the White House on a policy priority.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11645

 

[glockmail]

he just tried again....he may be stupid, but he sure is persistent (and stupid)

Who's stupid, Mr. redundant?

 

[Rosotar]

Keep rolling and you'll get shit in your mouth like Cl-Taurus did.

Stop whining about your points. Your butt buddies will give you 2 or 3 pos points for every neg I give you. Because that's what butt buddies do.

BOY!

This is a rough room!

 

[red states rule]

Who's stupid, Mr. redundant?

Libs cannot admit they were fired for NOT enforcing the law

Libs select what laws they want to enforce and which ones they will not

 

[Rosotar]

Libs cannot admit they were fired for NOT enforcing the law

This has been the standard RNC spin so far.

You've got to admire them the way they always manage to jump out in front of each Bush administration scandal with these convenient talking points. I know propaganda when I see it and these people have made an art form out of it. If you throw out select tidbits of misinformation just ahead of the train wreck you can convince some people that they might not really be seing what they are.

There's nothing to substantiate that statement red states. If there was Bush would be dying to send his people before Congress to prove it under oath.

Instead it looks like everyone is beginning to duck for cover.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261370,00.html

Libs select what laws they want to enforce and which ones they will not

Again...there's nothing to substantiate this claim.

 

[red states rule]

There are many cities (run by Dems) who refuse to arrest and deport illegals.

Have you forgotten the liberal Mayor in SF who thumbed his nose at the state Constitution and started to marry gays?

If libs do not like a law they ignore it

As far as the lawyers who were fired because they did now want to support the death penalty or crackdown on illegals

Again, they serve at the pleasure of the President

 

[Bullypulpit]

Tut Tut, one isn't supposed to speculate on guilt or innocence when the 5th is invoked. Just because you refuse to testify doesn't mean you are guilty. It just means your attorney doesn't trust you

Indeed, but that begs the question of, "Just what doesn't her attorney trust her with?"

 

[maineman]

DOJ officials are preparing to take the Fifth....

odd sort of behavior for a department that has nothing to hide!

lol

 

[red states rule]

DOJ officials are preparing to take the Fifth....

odd sort of behavior for a department that has nothing to hide!

lol

Go figure - libs want to give US Constitutional rights to terrorists but object when members of the US government want to exercise their US Constitutional rights

 

[maineman]

Go figure - libs want to give US Constitutional rights to terrorists but object when members of the US government want to exercise their US Constitutional rights

I do not object at all to administration officials taking their fifth amendment rights to avoid self incrimination. I just wonder what it is they have to hide that is so incriminating....don't you?

 

[red states rule]

I do not object at all to administration officials taking their fifth amendment rights to avoid self incrimination. I just wonder what it is they have to hide that is so incriminating....don't you?

No. The Dems are inventing an issue where none exists. I wonder if you felt the same way when Clinton officals exercise their rights when brought before committees? Probably not

 

[maineman]

No. The Dems are inventing an issue where none exists. I wonder if you felt the same way when Clinton officals exercise their rights when brought before committees? Probably not

if there is no issue, what is there that could possibly be so incriminating?

 

[red states rule]

if there is no issue, what is there that could possibly be so incriminating?

When you are going before a hostile committee, composed of those who are inventing an issue, you better watch your step

All the Dems are doing is showing they are not interested in solving problems, they are thinking of political gains

 

[maineman]

When you are going before a hostile committee, composed of those who are inventing an issue, you better watch your step

All the Dems are doing is showing they are not interested in solving problems, they are thinking of political gains

again.... if the lady has done nothing wrong, I cannot understand why she feels she could possibly incriminate herself of any illegalities.

it certainly flies in the face of the administration telling us they have nothing to hide.

 

[red states rule]

again.... if the lady has done nothing wrong, I cannot understand why she feels she could possibly incriminate herself of any illegalities.

it certainly flies in the face of the administration telling us they have nothing to hide.

I wonder why libs do not have such an attitude toward the terrorists at GITMO?

Libs have no problem savaging their own, but bend over backwards to protect the very people who want them dead

 

[maineman]

I wonder why libs do not have such an attitude toward the terrorists at GITMO?

Libs have no problem savaging their own, but bend over backwards to protect the very people who want them dead

not the same issue at all.... my only concern with the treatment of detainees in Gitmo is that we fully realize that any interrogation technique we use today on any of those detainees, we are telling the world that it is perfectly OK to use those same techniques to interrogate captured Americans in any future conflict.

I really do wonder what the administration has to hide here.... taking the fifth certainly smells of wrongdoing somewhere, doesn't it?