As federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald brings his investigation of the Plamegate scandal to a close, indictments look more and more likely:
The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case has told associates he has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials said yesterday.
…
By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury’s findings in such detail, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm.With the term of the grand jury expiring Oct. 28, lawyers in the case said they assumed Mr. Fitzgerald was in the final stages of his inquiry.
Rumors are rampant, with some speculating as many as twenty-two indictments on far ranging conspiracy charges, going as high up the White House ranks as Vice President Dick Cheney. My fellow liberal bloggers seem almost giddy with anticipation. This could be history in the making. (Then again, it could just be a lump of coal.)
Must be time for a “terror” alert!
The shame that is the Republican party is about to have the Light of Truth shed upon it.
Enjoy chewing on your coal, moonbats.
Goldy,
I think that is just a lump in the back of your shorts.
My guess is less than 6 indictments, with the highest MAYBE being Libby. The rest will be explained away as insufficient evidence of intent or some other reason why the law isn’t black-and-white in this case.
I wonder if the neo-cons are cynical enough to release laboratory-created bird flu and then declare martial law? Nahhhhhhh! You’d have to believe that these guys are capable of lying to the world to get us embroiled in a useless and ruinous war.
Oh, sorry for the attempt at irony! Many reasonable people fully expect this to happen.
We don’t need a terror alert. Cap’n Dumbshit has a hurricane.
We had a terror alert yesterday! Tunnels under the Chesepeake were closed. Someone must have jumped the gun, anticipating the indictments to come out sooner. LOL
And Mark @ 4, your attempt to downplay TREASON by the Veep’s Chief of Staff is, frankly, desperate. And I think the American public is smart enough to know that, even if they don’t indict anyone higher, the higher ups knew about it, and will thus be exposed as the cynical, lying, traitorous scum that they are.
Then again, there is the hope that Ari Fliesher has flipped, and Ari was present on Air Force One when this was discussed (possibly the reason he left?)and and they’ll RICO Bush AND Cheney into impeachment. (Even if Bush and Cheney didn’t say a word, if they can be placed at a meeting where the strategy of outing Plame was discussed, they are legally culpable, by statutes put in place to prosecute mob bosses who didn’t order “hits”)
Fianlly, it’s not the size of the gift that matters. Any indictment at all, even a perjury charge (against Rove oh be still my beating heart), will make this a very, merry Fitzmas.
Whoever is targeted will use the DeLay tactic — it’s a political vendetta…nothing more.
If Ari Fleisher flipped he’ll run into the same sort of troublesome airplane problems that people like that are prone to.
Larry @ 7: “even a perjury charge:
Lying to a grand jury? I thought you Lefties said that wasn’t a crime…
Mark @ 4: Oh, I forgot. “Insufficient evidence of intent”? Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahaahaha. Do you really think any jury would believe that Bush/Cheney/Rove did not specifically intend to destroy Wilson by outing his wife? Or that they didn’t know she was a covert operative, and therefore shouldn’t be held responsible? Read up on your law. That dog won ‘t hunt dude.
Also, several articles in the press over the past week are hinting at the real issue: Outing anyone who is covert (during wartime, no less) weakens our intelligence srvices. Specifically, it makes them less likely to want to/be able to do thier jobs. Since everyone agrees intelligence services are VERY important to the war against terror, how can anyone justify this? You should be outraged that the Republicans broke the law for short term political.
Mark at 10: Perjury when lying about sex and perjury when lying about treason are two very different things, ain’t they Mark? The law is a subtle instrument when it wants to be. Besides, you won that one, so why bring it up? Lying to a grand jury is perjury, and the rules don’t change just because it’s your guy.
Loosie-
Sure, lots of reasonable people… pass the koolaid.
Larry @ 11
Yes. Perjury is perjury. And if someone lied to a grand jury, they should be punished. [BTW, I’m not Rove’s #1 fan.]
Lying about sexual harrassment in a court of law is perjury, and guess what – he lost his license to practice law, and paid a hefty fine.
I’m noticing that no one has brought up the name of the uber-evil man Karl Rove. Could it be that you are already conceding that he didn’t do anything wrong? I guess you could indict him for having a messy garage.
I still can’t figure out how you can out an agent who isn’t covert and who invites her buddies to lunch with her at CIA headquarters.
Ronnie Earle went through three grand juries before he found one that would trust him to provide the evidence. Then he lost the evidence! Look for the indictment against Tom Delay to be dismissed.
by Goldy, 10/19/2005, 8:47 AM
“Rumors are rampant, with some speculating as many as twenty-two indictments on far ranging conspiracy charges, going as high up the White House ranks as Vice President Dick Cheney.”
What if there are no indictments? What if the indictments lead to 0 convictions?
Fitzgerald should release his report. The Dems in Congress should aslo stop blocking the release of the Independent Counsel David Barrett’s report on the tax-fraud case involving Henry Cisneros (Clinton HUD secretary). In both cases the taxpayers have a right to know what their money was spent on. Rumors are rampant about Barrett’s report as well, but you wouldn’t know about it from reading HA.
Larry @ 8
“Whoever is targeted will use the DeLay tactic – it’s a political vendetta…nothing more.”
I think “Plamegate” is a result of a vast left wing conspiracy out to get Bush.
Lucy @ 9
“If Ari Fleisher flipped he’ll run into the same sort of troublesome airplane problems that people like that are prone to.”
You mean like Ron Brown?
Let’s see what are the steps to recovery from a traumatic event:
Shock
Denial
Anger
Guilt
Depression
Acceptance
With the rightie trolls on this blog starting to abandon the Bush/Rove spin machine, I believe they are somewhere between shock and denial. After the indictments will come the anger. After the conviction of the traitors will come guilt. Then depression as their party is removed from power for 20-30 years and finally sweet acceptance of their shame, of their SHAME.
I still can’t figure out how you can out an agent who isn’t covert and who invites her buddies to lunch with her at CIA headquarters.
Comment by Janet S— 10/19/05 @ 10:33 am
This is classic denial. Valerie Plame wasn’t a CIA NOC???
Denial, Janet S. is displaying the classic symptoms of denial.
Next, I bet she gets angry.
Mark @ 13
“Yes. Perjury is perjury. And if someone lied to a grand jury, they should be punished. [BTW, I’m not Rove’s #1 fan.]”
I’ll take this to really mean that if someone lied to a grand jury, they should be tried for it. The punishment should probably await conviction.
Who said Rove won’t be indicted? His voluntary “request” to appear again before the grand jury again is widely interpreted as a desperate attempt to repair his testimony, likely by saying “I mis-spoke”, “I mis-remembered”, etc. Trying to get out of a perjury charge? We’ll see.
GBS…
Get over it, nothing is going to come of this case.
At the end of the day, all of this will be dropped for lack of evidence.
Next item to be dropped? Delays troubles will be found to be lacking of any evidence.
Saddam will be found guilty and executed and the war in Iraq will continue on for at least anouther 3 or four years.
Have I forgotten anything?
Janet S @ 14
“I’m noticing that no one has brought up the name of the uber-evil man Karl Rove. Could it be that you are already conceding that he didn’t do anything wrong? I guess you could indict him for having a messy garage.”
The names being tossed about as likely indictees are Stephen Hadley, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, and Mary Matalin. Or there could be none.
“I still can’t figure out how you can out an agent who isn’t covert and who invites her buddies to lunch with her at CIA headquarters.”
Yes we know you cannot figure that out–it is willful ignorance on your part. Hopefully, Mr. Fitzgerald will shed some light on the subject for you.
Janet @ 14:
From The Hill, the US Congress newspaper:
“CIA agents work under different sorts of “cover.” There’s “official cover” — like when an agent is assigned to a U.S. embassy under the guise that he or she is a foreign service officer. Then there’s “nonofficial” cover — like when your business cards say you’re a manager at Acme Overseas Energy Corporation, but you really work for the CIA.
Plame is in that latter category”
What’s your source for V. Plame not being covert? Don’t give me some partisan blog site, I want a to see a real MSM story that asserts this.
prr @ 20
Another bold prediction on your part? You know like the one you made about Bush’s approval rating after the London train bombings.
You’re in a classic state of denial, too.
GBS:
Group B streptococcus (GBS) is a type of bacterium that causes illness in newborn babies, pregnant women, the elderly, and adults with other illnesses, such as diabetes or liver disease. GBS is the most common cause of life-threatening infections in newborns.
How appropriate
dj @ 18
“Yes. Perjury is perjury. And if someone lied to a grand jury, they should be punished. [BTW, I’m not Rove’s #1 fan.]”
I’ll take this to really mean that if someone lied to a grand jury, they should be tried for it. The punishment should probably await conviction.
Actually, by saying “if someone lied” I meant “if someone is convicted of lying.” We don’t (legally) know if they lied or not unless they’re convicted (of if they’re from the opposing political party).
@20
Aren’t you putting yourself out on a limb, putty buddy? You may look very, very foolish within a few days.
SHOCK AND AWE! That’s how we may find our trolls next week — just glassy-eyed stares and dumbfounded silence. This is gonna be fun! We’re not talking about getting a blowjob, friends, this is about TREASON. The trolls, no doubt, will never abandon their party loyalty … but the American people will abandon the GOP when this comes down.
I’ll bet they’re already printing out copies of the pardons in the White House copier room.
Sure thing Rabbit…
Meanwhile at the National Democratic Headquarters, Osama Bin Laden is asking when he will be able to leave his hotel suite.
Roger @ 27
Yeah, probably. They’ll just start up where they left off in the alphabet — Rich… Rove…
prr @ 28
That reminds me of McDermott saying we’d already captured Osama & were just waiting to announce it. Guess he knew because the DNC had done it!
prr @ 28
“Meanwhile at the National Democratic Headquarters, Osama Bin Laden is asking when he will be able to leave his hotel suite.”
Huh? I’d say outing a covert operative (felony) is a bigger dent on the war on terror than dissenting from the administrations policies (protected under the constitution). This is still america right? Why don’t you try some real debating instead of throwing out confusing, misdirectional non-sequiters. (What the hell was your point anyway. Really, I want to know.)
ConservativeFirst @ 15
Dems in Congress should aslo stop blocking the release of the Independent Counsel David Barrett’s report…
Henry Cisneros’ lawyers (not “Dems in Congress”) have filed motions requesting that ALLEGATIONS of wrongdoing for which NO CHARGES WERE FILED be redacted from Barrett’s report. This is to keep the report from being used as a vehicle to smear Mr. Cisneros’ name.
AFTER a grand jury hands down indictments, then the defendants can ask the same of Mr. Fitzgerald. I think it’s only fair.
What if there are no indictments?
Then those sources close to the case would be wrong. But, as effective as Fitzgerald has been a keeping leaks plugged, those who are talking are probably attorneys, for the either the suspects or the flippers.
What if the indictments lead to 0 convictions?
That’s the way it goes. Did OJ do it? Or not?
Does his acquittal influence your thinking?
Mark-30 ‘Guess he knew because the DNC had done it!’
Or, he overheard it on a scanner.
Curtis Love @ 32
“Henry Cisneros’ lawyers (not “Dems in Congress”) have filed motions requesting that ALLEGATIONS of wrongdoing for which NO CHARGES WERE FILED be redacted from Barrett’s report. This is to keep the report from being used as a vehicle to smear Mr. Cisneros’ name.”
Wrong. Senators Dorgan, Kerry and Durbin (they are all Democrats), tried to prevent the report from seeing the light of day by inserting a rider into an emergency appropriations bill, in the middle of the night.
http://tinyurl.com/bj3vy
“A Senate rider inserted in an emergency appropriations bill in the dead of the night, which would close a rare window into political foul play at the Internal Revenue Service, was quietly removed Tuesday in Senate-House negotiations.”
“Passage of the amendment probably would have meant Barrett’s voluminous report on the Cisneros case never would see the light of day.”
“Dorgan was the amendment’s principal sponsor. Co-sponsors were Sen. Richard Durbin, the minority whip, and Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee for president.”
Wrong again. Cisneros was charged and convicted (through a plea agreement) in 1999. He was pardoned by President Clinton just before he left office.
http://tinyurl.com/amv2x
“Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros pleaded guilty Tuesday to one misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI after reaching a plea bargain with federal prosecutors just as his trial on 18 counts of lying to federal investigators was scheduled to begin.
Under the agreement, Cisneros will pay a $10,000 fine, but will not face prison, probation or any other penalty.”
i wish i could believe that there will be charges brought against anyone of these people but don’t.
Justice will not be served here…i hope i am wrong
Curtis Love-32 ‘..(not “Dems in Congress”)..’
http://www.opinionjournal.com/.....=110006594
“Then there’s the amendment that North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan and co-sponsors John Kerry and Richard Durbin are trying to attach to the latest supplemental war appropriations bill that would de-fund Mr. Barrett immediately. This would have the practical effect of making sure that Mr. Barrett’s report never sees the light of day. After 10 long years and $21 million, don’t they think taxpayers deserve to see what the special counsel has learned?”
http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....0116c.html
“In April, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) tried to ax the probe – which has cost $22 million, including $1 million for the first six months of this year – by cutting Barrett’s budget, saying it’s a waste of money, but Republicans stopped them.”
And:
“Lawyers at the Washington firm Williams and Connolly who work for Cisnero and both Clintons…”
yearight,
Not sure what your last comment (“Lawyers at the Washington firm Williams and Connolly who work for Cisnero and both Clintons…”) has to do with it.
Has any Republican been convicted of a crime? If so, exactly what? [All I hear is bitching and complaining!]
National security adviser Sandy “Pants” Berger and longtime Al Gore senior aide Ron Klain have joined other Clintonistas as advisers on “Commander in Chief,” in which Geena Davis is President. Hillary operatives are watching the show’s ratings as a barometer for how she might fare in ’08.
Last time I looked…none of the Dems mentioned started a war based on lies and compromised the covert operations of the CIA by disclosing the identity of an undercover agent. Probably resulting in the deaths of the contacts of said agent.
But this administration does not care who gets killed or what gets compromised or destroyed in the wake of their obsession to wring every last dollar they can out of this country before they are thrown out of office.
They are liars…they are thieves. They’ll sell their daughters into slavery if they could make enough. They have PROVED it time and again.
Look…if they hadn’t gotten so full of themselves and the feeling that they were “bulletproof”…we’d still be just grumbling and growling and hoping for a break. Their OWN uncontrollable meglomania is doing them in.
Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, DeLay, on and on and on…they’re all going down.
Enemies of Democracy every one. Traitors who tried to establish an autocratic oligarchy…using the soldiers of the fundamental religious right.
They came THIS CLOSE to pulling it off.
You know, it wouldn’t be so bad from some of Bush’s guys to go to the slammer for awhile. It would pay-back for sending Martha Stewart to prison, not that I’m a Martha fan. They should have just fined the bejeepers out of her and not sent her to the slammer. Maybe that’s what they’ll do now.
Does anyone out there mind paying for Bush’s boys to have “three hots and a cot” for several year? Maybe a fine would be better??
3
“Enjoy chewing on your coal, moonbats.”
(Whatever the hell a “moonbat” is, I’ll never know.)
What sort of knowledge of the future do you have that allows you to make that statement? Are you getting information leaked to you from sources in this investigation that perhaps we should know about?
rujax @ 38
The Dems are responsible for UNTOLD American deaths — men, women and children who continue to live in poverty. Why? Because you treat social programs like a cr**k dealer would — just enough to keep ’em dependent and keep ’em needing you.
Give a man a fish… teach a man to fish…
CF @ 15
“I think “Plamegate” is a result of a vast left wing conspiracy out to get Bush.”
In my view, this is a rather paranoid statement. Even so, this statement would assume a number of implausible things, such as: a) there was no leak from within the White House; b) Fitzgerald is taking his orders from the DLC, and c) Robert Novak willingly conspired with Democrats trying to inflict damage on the current administration.
Or something of that nature.
Holy wilful misconstruing of events, Batman!
yearight @36: The article you reference from theWSJ says ” We should add that any blame for this delay lies mainly with Mr. Cisneros’s lawyers at Williams and Connolly, who have filed more than 190 motions and appeals; one single appeal took some 18 months to deal with. The 400-plus page Barrett report has been largely done since last August, and awaits only a requisite period for review and response by those named in its pages. The only thing threatening a hold-up past June are further defense motions seeking still more delay.”
Barrett isn’t bringing idictments, he’s issuing a report. No prosecutable crime has even been defined yet (or, the original crime was already pardoned), so it’s a bit premature to compare this to Plamegate.
The bringers of the amendment have said ” report should be made public, and we hope that it will be” What they were trying to do was stop the SPENDING on a dead issue. I thought that was what Republicans were for?
Now, imagine that this was a holdover probe from Bush I’s or, God forbid, St. Ronnie’s administration. And someone pleaded guilty and was fined and pardoned. Do you think that the Republican controlled House and Senate would strip the funding then?
Dr. E @ 42
“In my view, this is a rather paranoid statement.”
I’d agree. So paranoid, I don’t really believe it myself. Doesn’t it remind you of something the front runner for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination said back in 1998?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS.....ary.today/
“First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday firmly denied allegations that her husband had an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mrs. Clinton blamed the sex allegations on a “a vast right-wing conspiracy” against President Bill Clinton.”
ConservativeFirst@44
Ohhh…I thought it came from Delay’s cries of a vast Left-wing conspiracy.
Can you do that after being indicted for conspiracy?
ConservativeFirst @ 34
I did not know about the Congressional action. They’re right, it IS a colossal waste of money to continue to try to smear Democrats by publishing a big book of allegations that resulted in no charges.
Henry Cisneros pleaded guilty Tuesday to one misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI after reaching a plea bargain with federal prosecutors just as his trial on 18 counts of lying to federal investigators
Yep. No question about it. But the report contains (as I said, and no doubt you remember) OTHER allegations of wrongdoing for which no charges were filed. Charges WERE clearly filed if Cisneros faced “18 counts of lying to federal investigators.” So those aren’t the charges I’m talking about here, are they?
I should note that “lying to federal investigators” is a common way for feds to nab a high political figure. They’ve coverred their tracks on the actual dirty deed, but when asked, their story has contradictions or otherwise has holes. Watch what happens to Bush’s Asshole, Scooter, Steve Hadley, et. al. All too often their first instinct is to deny—deny that they talked to whoever, deny that they met with so-and-so, deny that they were in the room, and so on. So they get federal lying charges. Watch and learn as this plays out.
But the unfiled charges against Cisneros probably shouldn’t be aired. I’d feel the same about your guys.
BTW, Dems had no chance of passing this, and you know it, and I know it.
Hey, did y’all know the President talked for over an hour to Patrick Fitzgerald in June 2004? Did he lie when he did? Does Fitzgerald KNOW he lied? Hmmm…indictments, anyone?
Wingnuts, what should be the penalty for a president lying to a federal prosecutor pursiung a national-security leak? Just to make it fair, I won’t identify the president about whom I am speaking…
Curtis@44: And remember, regardless of whether he was under oath, lying to a federal prosecutor during the course of an investigation is a crime. Instead of perjury he could be indicted for obstruction of justice. (Oh please, oh please, oh please…)
Explain something to me: How can it be a vast left wing conspiracy when the prosecutor is a Republican? Doesn’t that, ummm, not make ANY FUCKING SENSE.
You don’t have to make sense if you’re a republican.
So where are all the fucking jobs this chump and his “reverse robin hood” economic policies were supposed to create? Where is the concern from this admonisstration about jobs going overseas. Where is the action from this “oil-man” administration about gas prices and the impending heating oil crisis. You’ve got a lot of fucking nerve stating that DDemocratic policies are keeping people poor when it’s VERY CLEAR that feor the first time in 70 years the middle class is losing ground and a permanent economic underclass is being created.
Fuck you…fuck you corrupt conservative republicans and your destruction of the American way of life.
dj @ 45
“Can you do that after being indicted for conspiracy?”
While on the surface your comment is an amusing irony, if the indictment is thrown out, it would seem to strengthen Delay’s claim. I think the indictment against Delay is pretty thin, so I see that as a real possibility. I’ll wait and see on the indictments that Fitzgerald brings, if any.
Ray Donovan and Mike Espy were both indicted Cabinet Secretaries. They were tried, and acquitted. The same may happen to Delay. Time will tell, I think it’s irresponsible to jump to conclusions and assume guilt based upon an indictment. You do realize Delay has the constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, by an impartial jury, don’t you? Or is that right only for people you agree with?
“Where do I go to get my reputation back?” — Reagan Labor Secretary Ray Donovan after being acquitted of corruption charges in 1987.
The prospect of Fitzmas is so invigorating that I briefly awoke from blog-hibernation to post on it. Allusion to Heller completely intentional.
Larry the Urbanite-43
‘The bringers of the amendment have said ” report should be made public, and we hope that it will be”..’
They only said that after the WSJ article came out. (Key word – “hope”, as opposed to having the report issue be mandated as part of the ammendment.)
‘What they were trying to do was stop the SPENDING on a dead issue.’
If they really wanted the report to come out they would have allowed some spending to finish up the appeals and finalize the report. Cutting it off to zero would allow for neither.
‘..so it’s a bit premature to compare this to Plamegate.’
Agreed, and my response was to the tangential comments @15 and @32.
The rumors indicate that there is quite a bit of embarrasing information regarding the IRS in the report. Conservatives really like that kind of stuff. There are even rumors about some Hillary involvement with the IRS stuff which is why most on the right think the dems want it squashed. There does not have to be indictments or convictions to provide truth that may be fodder for 2008.
Five years…
W can start serving it just in place of his next five-week vacation, maybe?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc.....-000-.html
yearight @ 52:
First let me say thank you for the civil and, more importantly, cogent response.
The last line caught my eye, and I think you have hit the nail partially on the head
” There does not have to be indictments or convictions to provide truth that may be fodder for 2008.”
Just take out the “truth that may be” part and it’s 100% correct, lol. That’s what this is all about. Republicans (still!) want to smear Hillary, not with a crime, mind you, just with innuendo/association. Not that I care, though. Having Hillary as a candidate would be much, much worse than Gore or Kerry was, regardless that she might actually make a good Pres (GWB has lowered the bar considerably in that respect). Talk about mobilizing the Republican base, sheesh. She could pee on a crucifix on the capital steps while introducing a bill that would allow married, welfare recipient lesbians to have abortions at federal expense, and Republicans wouldn’t hate her more than they already do. (And, my God, Bill Clinton would be First Lady! Ack! I hadn’t even considered what a potential disaster that might be. Have any First Ladies been caught screwing the help?)
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d say the Barrett report is really being held up by the two conservative oversight judges. They don’t want it released until closer to 2008.
Larry the Urbanite-54
I actually think Hillary could win, and all indications point to her getting the nomination if she wants it. I do not see anyone on the repub side that could get nominated and win against her. (Newt looks like he is playing around with the possibility, and that would change my assessment.) In any event, if Hillary (and/or Newt) runs the campaing season will be interesting.
‘First let me say thank you for the civil and, more importantly, cogent response.’
Ditto. (Sorry – been wanting to use that for so long, and the occasion never seems to appear on this blog.)
Interesting? That’s one word for it. I don’t know if I can stand another “interesting” presidential campaign. I’d rather it was a one sided rout. Then I wouldn’t have to roam the blogsphere and check electoral counts every five minutes.
How about McCain?
44
Aside from the fact that there are many major differrences between the Starr and Fitzgerald investigations (adultery vs. treason, for instance), I don’t think bringing up Clinton (Hill or Bill) really is much more than a non-sequitur. It’s the typical “yeah-but-Clinton/the Dems-did-this-too” argument.
Yes, the right-wing hates Hillary. That’s the *advantage* of her running.
The Republican message won’t be “Bill Frist is the best person to be President”; it’ll be “Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster” and other crackpot stuff that no one outside the Republican base cares about. It’ll make the election a referendum on whether you like Hillary Clinton as a person… and the American people by and large do.
Conservativefirst @ 50
“While on the surface your comment is an amusing irony”
Glad you noticed!
“, if the indictment is thrown out, it would seem to strengthen Delay’s claim.”
You mean, if all of the indictments are thrown out, of course….
“I think the indictment against Delay is pretty thin…”
Which one?
“Time will tell, I think it’s irresponsible to jump to conclusions and assume guilt based upon an indictment. ”
Indeed…I believe I stated that first in this thread.
“You do realize Delay has the constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, by an impartial jury, don’t you? “
No shit, sherlock.
Larry the Urbanite-56 ‘How about McCain?’
It will be hard for McCain to win the nomination due to several issues where he upset conservatives. If the other nominees are really bad or no more conservative then…who knows?
Aexia @ 58: “Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster”
Would you stop perpetuating that BS??!! Everyone knows she HAD him killed. ;)
dj @ 59
“Which one?”
I stand corrected. I’d forgotten about the three grand juries in five days, with one refusing to indict. So I should have made may statemets to use the plural “indictments”.
“Indeed…I believe I stated that first in this thread.”
Fair enough. I missed your previous comments. Sorry to lump you in with the comments of others who seem to want to send Delay to prison tomorrow (Howard Dean included).
ConservativeWorst:
Fair enough. I missed your previous comments. Sorry to lump you in with the comments of others who seem to want to send Delay to prison tomorrow (Howard Dean included).
Not to put words into dj’s mouth, but I bet that he does want to see DeLay in stripes tomorrow — today would be even better — but he’s perfectly willing to wait until the wheels of justice (and 12 Texans good and true) roll along to their rightful conclusion.
Same goes for Howard, I’m certain.
The only hope for Hillary to ever get elected is if another Ross Perot comes around to split the vote on the right. Her husband only received 49% of the vote against a terribly weak Dole. There is no reason to believe that Hiliary would even get close to that let alone above 50%. Ross Perot got the Clintons elected in 92, will 08 be just as generous to them.
RUFUS @` 69
Popular vote percentages can be misleading, and are not the point here in the USA anyway. The electoral vote was Clinton 379/Dole 159. Not even close.
PS: 1992 was Clinton 372/Bush 166. Again, not even close. Bill Clinton (aided by his team) was a masterful electoral strategist, and he knew how to win in the South. Perot-Schmerot.
BTW, don’t get all excited about the possibility of “22 indictments.” It may just be another of Karl’s dirty tricks to minimize the impact of the indictments that ARE handed down.
The neo-cons blew up Sen. Paul Wellstone’s plane. Don’t even try to deny it. It’s common Knowledge.
re 45: …and neo-cons neither teach a man to fish nor give a man a fish. What they do do is stage 9/11 and get everyone all stirred up about terrorists, send our young people to a foreign land and put them in mortal danger without even the proper equipment to defend themselves, and then enrich themselves and all their cronies in the process.
And you idiot fellow travelers DEFEND them!!!???!!! What in the name of sweet ,bleeding JESUS are you thinking???!!!???
Loose-y @ 73: “What they do do is stage 9/11…”
Guess you’re still in some pathological euphoria from your latest episode of child abuse. After a comment like that, everything else you type just sounds like the teach from Peanuts: “Fwah, fwah. Fwah, fwah-fwah fwah.”
Interesting that your response to my comment wasn’t a defense stating what (you’re told) the Dems are doing to combat poverty, homelessness and death. The fact is that the welfare state is a self-perpetuating animal that devours all who come in contact with it. Eventually, it will collapse under its own weight.
Mark @ 45, 74
“Give a man a fish… teach a man to fish…
Maybe first one should buy the man a fishing rod.
I really don’t understand the whole right-wing argument that “Dems are responsible for UNTOLD American deaths…because [of treating] social programs like a cr**k dealer would.”
Surely it can’t be that simple, even if your argument were true. And if it were, what would you put in its place?
Dr. E @ 75
IMHO, Dem social programs are offensive because they’re patronizing and treat every recipient like a victim — perpetuating their victimhood. Programs like Washington CASH treat people with respect and seek out their strengths.
Yes, some people have too many physical or mental issues and need our permanent help. The sad thing is that those who CAN work are siphoning off the additional benefits that those who CAN’T work really need.
Social programs shouldn’t be about how much you can give away for free. They should take two tracks. One in which people get all they need (hopefully, with the help of their families and/or community) and another where people are given all the help they need to quickly hit the ground running and never look back.
Curtis-
Common man– Just look at the vote. How many states did Clinton win with over 50% of the vote…. try one. He won with 43% of the total vote. There is at least 11 states that Bush probably would have won if it wasnt for Perot. They are
Colorado
Gergia
Iowa
Kentucky
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Ohio
Wisconsin
Louisiana
This would have easily put Bush Sr over the top. And there was probably more states he would have won. Bottom line is no Perot no Clinton in 1992.