Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
DoJ Official To Take the Fifth
Topic Started: Mar 26 2007, 05:58 PM (941 Views)
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Word.

So you admit you're a water carrier for the democrats. Well, thanks for being honest on *that* point, at least.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Larry
Mar 29 2007, 12:26 PM
Quote:
 
Word.

So you admit you're a water carrier for the democrats. Well, thanks for being honest on *that* point, at least.

There you go again. Only the first half of the adage applies in this case, however.

:sombrero:

PS> IIRC correctly, I have to inform the NPA national convention in writing if I have to revoke my affiliation.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Mar 29 2007, 03:19 PM
QuirtEvans
Mar 29 2007, 02:04 PM
JBryan
Mar 29 2007, 02:49 PM
As I recall, Clinton was brought up on a civil suit and that was the matter for which the perjury charge obtained. I also recall that the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that he could not be shielded from a civil suit just because he was President. I actually disagreed with them on this but that was the ruling all the same. I don't recall any of the legion Republican investigations during his Administration to be about trivial matters. Whether it was travelgate, the FBI files, whitewater, webster hubbel's sweetheart deals, Johnny Chung, the Riadys, transfer of technology to China, campaign finance by same, etc., etc., etc. none were about trivial matters.

Yeah, Travelgate is just soooo much more significant than the possibility that US Attorneys were being fired in order to stop investigations of Republicans and start investigations of Democrats.

Be careful, JB, your lack of objectivity is showing.

I guess I just thought the matter of the most powerful man in the country utterly destroying a lowly civil servant to put his cronies in his job was more serious than you seem to take it. He could have simply fired the guy and installed his cronies anyway. There would have been nothing really improper about it. Instead, he had to trump up some phony charges against Billy Dale and subject him to the meat grinder of the criminal system. The charges were laughed out of court when they finally reached trial but he was ruined financially.

And I thought the Dems were for the little guy.

I see. So destroying the reputation one civil servant (I'm going with your assumption, without necessarily agreeing with it) rates as more of an underlying conduct problem in your book than destroying the reputation of eight prosecutors for the sake of (go with the assumption, for purposes of determining whether an investigation was warranted) blocking an investigation of Republicans and getting investigations started against Democrats. In fact, the first is worthy of a full-scale Congressional investigation, but the second is a fishing expedition and shouldn't even trouble them.

Doesn't something seem a little bass ackwards about that?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
No, it doesn't. Bush did not phony up some criminal charges against these guys and have them packed off in irons. He simply fired them. If there was something nefarious about why they were fired we still haven't seen a shred of evidence for it. Calling the destruction of Billy Dale an "assumption" is laughable on the order of calling the sunrise an "assumption" but you are simply trying to employ sleight of hand to equate that "assumption" with the fairy tales being spun out of whole cloth that you listed. Oh, and their reputations ruined? Please.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Mar 29 2007, 01:29 PM
destroying the reputation of eight prosecutors

:spit:

Carol Lam is now senior vice president and legal counsel for for Qualcomm.

Paul Charlton is now a partner in Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A

John McKay is professor of law at Seattle University School of Law.

That is pretty outlandish hyperbole, even from you Quirt.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Mar 29 2007, 03:35 PM
No, it doesn't. Bush did not phony up some criminal charges against these guys and have them packed off in irons. He simply fired them. If there was something nefarious about why they were fired we still haven't seen a shred of evidence for it. Calling the destruction of Billy Dale an "assumption" is laughable on the order of calling the sunrise an "assumption" but you are simply trying to employ sleight of hand to equate that "assumption" with the fairy tales being spun out of whole cloth that you listed. Oh, and their reputations ruined? Please.

We've seen plenty of evidence, you just have to pull your head out of the sand to see it.

How about Iglesias, who was actively being considered for promotion until he gave an unacceptable answer to a couple of Congresspeople about whether he was pursuing voting fraud cases against Democrats? Even though the DoJ and the FBI didn't disagree with his decision that there wasn't sufficient evidence?

How about Carol Lam telling the AG's office on Day 1 that she was issuing subpoenas in a Republican bribery investigation, and Sampson deciding on Day 2 that she had to be gotten rid of immediately?

There are none so blind as those that will not see.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
There are none so blind as those that will not see.


You're projecting again.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
How about Carol Lam telling the AG's office on Day 1 that she was issuing subpoenas in a Republican bribery investigation, and Sampson deciding on Day 2 that she had to be gotten rid of immediately?


http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_New_Coffee...showtopic=21605

Quote:
 
There are none so blind as those that will not see.


Indeed.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
QuirtEvans
Mar 29 2007, 03:38 PM
There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Ayup...

Part 1

Quote:
 
Sen. Hatch questions:
Q. How long process took?
A. Waited until terms expired to review USA activity and didn’t ask all USA’s to resign.
Q. What were the administration’s “performance” critiera?
A. Broad definition that included a long list of characteristics
Q. Was about investigating Republicans
A. No
Q. Was anyone asked to resign for improper political reasons?
A. No. Some were asked to resign for not carrying out as president’s or AG’s priorities
Q. Was Lam asked to resign because of investigating Cunningham? Any other case?
A. No (in fact admin already had her marked for replacement before Cunningham case was public, according to Hatch)
Q. Why Lam
A. She was on the “list” because she opposed Safe Neighborhoods (anti-gun violence program) and later because she would not enforce immigration laws



Part 2
Quote:
 
Specter questions
Q. Was any USA asked to resign because someone wanted corruption probe stopped?
Q. Was any USA asked to resign because someone wanted corruption probe started?
A. No for Lam. Lack of prosecuting immigration cases was the “real problem” with Lam, according to Sampson.
A. No for Inglesias. Sampson volunteered to explain how four more USAs got added after he recommended the first four but Specter didn’t let him answer.
A. No to any situation for stopping or starting corruption probes his knowledge.


Evidently Sampson disagrees with your assessment, Quirt. Of course, he's an administration hack, and he's probably lying under oath....
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Well, George, if you've already committed obstruction of justice, it's not too great a step to perjury.

Or do you think that Sampson was going to walk up there and admit to obstruction of justice?

And yes, I'm glad to see that you understand and agree that he's an Administration hack. :P

Interesting, though, that he called Gonzales a liar.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Mar 29 2007, 04:40 PM
Quote:
 
There are none so blind as those that will not see.


You're projecting again.

I never get tired of the brilliance of the "I know you are, but what am I?" retort.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Edit: Nevermind...
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
QuirtEvans
Mar 29 2007, 05:51 PM
Larry
Mar 29 2007, 04:40 PM
Quote:
 
There are none so blind as those that will not see.


You're projecting again.

I never get tired of the brilliance of the "I know you are, but what am I?" retort.

sQuirt, if you didn't suffer from this mental illness you suffer from, you'd be able to understand that it isn't a "I know" argument, it's a matter of pointing out what you're doing. You're dysfunctional, and it's a result of your yellow dog democrat politics. You *are* doing what psychiatrists refer to as "projecting". The first step toward healing is admitting your problem, sQuirt.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Mar 29 2007, 05:51 PM
I never get tired of the brilliance of the "I know you are, but what am I?" retort.

Yes, so we read.... post by post by post. :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
JBryan
Mar 29 2007, 03:44 PM
Quote:
 
How about Carol Lam telling the AG's office on Day 1 that she was issuing subpoenas in a Republican bribery investigation, and Sampson deciding on Day 2 that she had to be gotten rid of immediately?


http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_New_Coffee...showtopic=21605

Quote:
 
There are none so blind as those that will not see.


Indeed.

Since quirt doesn't seem to want to address this.

From the link I posted:

Quote:
 
So that is the story, at least as far as we know it now. The one factor that does not appear in the documents is the Duke Cunningham case, which Democrats claim was the reason Lam was fired. The only connection specifically alleged so far is a circumstantial one: On May 11, 2006, Sampson wrote a memo urging action on the Lam matter the day after Lam informed the Department she was pursuing an investigation that would target Republicans. In the memo, Sampson referred to “the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires.”

Some Democrats have pointed to the memo as a smoking gun. But there are problems with their theory. The first is that Sampson wrote his memo in response to an inquiry the day before from the White House, and his note was basically a resending of an e-mail he had sent the month before. More importantly, the evidence shows that Sampson urged that Lam be fired in notes written in March 2005, January 2006, and April 2006 — all before Lam informed Washington of her prosecution plans. The notion that Lam’s most recent investigation was the cause of her firing simply doesn’t have much support in the documents.


So, you see Sampson's desire to get rid of Lam did not begin on "Day 2". His email was just the latest in a series of emails saying the same thing. Furthermore, this email does not seem to be prompted by Lam's indictments at all but by a question sent by the White House.

There is so much wrong with the "Carol Lam got fired for indicting Duke Cunningham" theory I am truly amazed that anyone would still be flogging it.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Since you aren't paying attention, I'll try again.

I acknowledge that Lam's name was put on the list earlier.

Sampson's URGENCY didn't occur until THE DAY AFTER she informed the AG's office of the new round of subpoenas against Republicans.

His sudden need to have a replacement IMMEDIATELY available ... for her, and not for anyone else .... is what's suspicious.


It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Mar 29 2007, 05:53 PM
QuirtEvans
Mar 29 2007, 05:51 PM
Larry
Mar 29 2007, 04:40 PM
Quote:
 
There are none so blind as those that will not see.


You're projecting again.

I never get tired of the brilliance of the "I know you are, but what am I?" retort.

sQuirt, if you didn't suffer from this mental illness you suffer from, you'd be able to understand that it isn't a "I know" argument, it's a matter of pointing out what you're doing. You're dysfunctional, and it's a result of your yellow dog democrat politics. You *are* doing what psychiatrists refer to as "projecting". The first step toward healing is admitting your problem, sQuirt.

Crawl back under the couch, Cockroach.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
QuirtEvans
Mar 30 2007, 05:54 AM
Since you aren't paying attention, I'll try again.

I acknowledge that Lam's name was put on the list earlier.

Sampson's URGENCY didn't occur until THE DAY AFTER she informed the AG's office of the new round of subpoenas against Republicans.

His sudden need to have a replacement IMMEDIATELY available ... for her, and not for anyone else .... is what's suspicious.

And just what causes you to infer this so-called urgency. He basically resent the same email to the White House that he sent them before in response to a question by them. It was so urgent to him that he wanted someone ready to be nominated at the end of her term. Not immediately as you are saying. Apparently, it is not me who is not paying attention.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
The inference of the so-called urgency comes from saying they needed someone ready to nominate THE DAY her term expired. Sounds pretty urgent to me.

Sampson also acknowledged that ...

The USA Today ranked Lam's immigration prosecution record as third best in the nation. Pretty funny if she wasn't prosecutiing immigration cases, huh?

No one from DoJ ever called her ... EVER CALLED HER ... to tell her that she wasn't following the Administration's priorities on immigration. Most bosses I know actually give the employee some clue of what they want and how they aren't meeting expectations before firing them. Unless, of course, the expectation can't be spoken, because it's the Eleventh Commandment (don't prosecute Republicans).
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
We already know that DoJ was dropping the ball on this. There were several Congressman including Darrel Issa who were trying to get their attention. Internal documents show they were concerned at DoJ but the fact that no one ever called her is a reflection of their ineptitude. It is a stretch to say it was because they didn't have any concerns about her until she indicted Duke Cunningham. In fact, the documentary evidence contradicts that. You are really reaching here.

Quote:
 
The USA Today ranked Lam's immigration prosecution record as third best in the nation. Pretty funny if she wasn't prosecutiing immigration cases, huh?


That's nice. I'm sure the USA Today's endorsement will look good on her resume. There were, however, a lot of other people who disagreed and the evidence supports them. for instance, the number of immigration cases actually went down during her tenure. This while they were going up in all other border districts.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Crawl back under the couch, Cockroach.

Yeah - cockroaches usually are attracted to garbage, aren't they sQuirt?.....
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
QuirtEvans
Mar 29 2007, 01:38 PM
We've seen plenty of evidence, you just have to pull your head out of the sand to see it.

How about Iglesias, who was actively being considered for promotion until he gave an unacceptable answer to a couple of Congresspeople about whether he was pursuing voting fraud cases against Democrats? Even though the DoJ and the FBI didn't disagree with his decision that there wasn't sufficient evidence?
...
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
No Criminal Charges in US Attorney Firings
Quote:
 
“Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias,” Weich wrote in the letter. “The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias.”

Justice Department officials said Wednesday that the probe is now closed. The inquiry focused on Iglesias and the findings outlined in the letter related to the investigation of his dismissal, they said. No wider investigation was determined to be necessary.

Move along, nothing to see here, even if you're blind.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Thanks for the update, George.

(p.s. Do you resurrect this thread because you really want to share the update with us, or are you missing Quirt bad?)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
I update this to point out that the hysteria over the firing of the US attorneys was not a criminal act, despite the heavy breathing of many on the left. I like closure, lest wrong impressions live on. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I miss Quirt.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3