How can I blame Clinton for the Black Plague?

[hogjack]

there's nothing there

Ishmael

But you still paid her 50 dollars for service. Not a fair exchange.

 

[Ishmael]

You mean like getting a blow job in the Oval Office?

"It's my dick. Get over it."

Biggest political deflection in recent history. The issue was never about the blow job, it was about lying about it to a judge. Isn't that one of the charges that Libby is facing 25 years over?

But I do happen to agree that there should have never been an investigation initiated over a blow job. There was no evidence of a crime having been commited. The investigation created the crime. Just like Libby.

Ishmael

 

[RawHumor]

Biggest political deflection in recent history. The issue was never about the blow job, it was about lying about it to a judge. Isn't that one of the charges that Libby is facing 25 years over?

But I do happen to agree that there should have never been an investigation initiated over a blow job. There was no evidence of a crime having been commited. The investigation created the crime. Just like Libby.

Ishmael

Adultery is a crime.

 

[Paendragon]

They'll run around in circles and somehow make a trivial matter look sinister.

Ishmael

That's the way most of these things work, isn't it? Any time secrets are such a large part of the job description, honesty is always way down on the list of things to do. The President's problem is he's doesn't ever feel the need to explain himself. So instead of coming right out and sayin what the deal is, the administration says nothing, or tries to spin out some sort of defense. You think they would have learned from blowjobgate.

 

[Ishmael]

Adultery is a crime.

In a few remaining states maybe. It's not a federal crime.

Ishmael

 

[Lasher]

But I do happen to agree that there should have never been an investigation initiated over a blow job. There was no evidence of a crime having been commited. The investigation created the crime. Just like Libby.

I pretty much agree with this.

I would expect Libby to eventually win on appeal. The jurors still don't know what they convicted him of.

 

[phrodeau]

Arkansas had a "no pet rats" law, which was shoddily enforced.

How's that?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Lasher]

The 2 big issues for me in the US Attorney's deal are:

1)That the current administration is just now learning that there are things you just can't do when you're at 30% approval rating and the opposition controls the Congress.

2) The AG has to at least present the appearance that he represents the US and not the president. Gonzales has been a dismal failure at this from day 1. No one has ever believed he has an ounce of independence.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Biggest political deflection in recent history. The issue was never about the blow job, it was about lying about it to a judge. l

The bigger deflection. It wasn't about lying to a judge. The judge wasn't investigating blowjobs. The judge wasn't investigating anything about Monica Lewinski. It was a witch hunt about nothing, and they found nothing. They spent millions looking for nothing. They found an insy-bitsy teenie weenie disingenuous statement (legally "sexual relations" only means intercourse, which is why Clinton used that phrase) and tried to make something out of it. The deflection isn't "They made it about blowjobs instead of perjury" -- it's "they made it about the appearance of perjury regarding a blowjob instead of what they were actual investigating."

So when people say "It was a about a blowjob", you know? They're right.

 

[Ishmael]

I pretty much agree with this.

I would expect Libby to eventually win on appeal. The jurors still don't know what they convicted him of.

One would hope justice prevails.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

The bigger deflection. It wasn't about lying to a judge. The judge wasn't investigating blowjobs. The judge wasn't investigating anything about Monica Lewinski. It was a witch hunt about nothing, and they found nothing. They spent millions looking for nothing. They found an insy-bitsy teenie weenie disingenuous statement (legally "sexual relations" only means intercourse, which is why Clinton used that phrase) and tried to make something out of it. The deflection isn't "They made it about blowjobs instead of perjury" -- it's "they made it about the appearance of perjury regarding a blowjob instead of what they were actual investigating."

So when people say "It was a about a blowjob", you know? They're right.

Didn't read my second paragraph, or choose to ignore it?

Ishmael

 

[revelator]

"Clinton fired some guys, too!"

Apparently, the way to "Restore Honor and Dignity to the White House" is to do exactly what the guy you accuse of trashing the place did.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Didn't read my second paragraph, or choose to ignore it?

Ishmael

I read it. And your name is Joanie.

 

[revelator]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1

March 15, 2007 — New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House.

The e-mails also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel — weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers and was her idea alone.

Two independent sources in a position to know have described the contents of the e-mail exchange, which could be released as early as Friday. They put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter.

The e-mail exchange is dated in early January 2005, more than a month before the White House acknowledged it was considering firing all the U.S. attorneys — and while Gonzales still was White House counsel. On its face, the plan is not improper, inappropriate or even unusual: The President has the right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time, and presidents have done so when they took office.

What has made the issue a political firestorm is the White House's insistence that the idea came from Harriet Miers and was swiftly rejected.

White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters Tuesday that Miers had suggesting firing all 93 and that it was "her idea only." Snow said Miers' idea was quickly rejected by the Department of Justice.

However, Miers was Bush's staff secretary at that time in January 2005. She did not become White House counsel for another month, after Gonzales left to become attorney general.

The latest e-mails show that Gonzales and Rove both were involved in the discussion, and neither rejected it out of hand.

According to the e-mails, Rove raised the issue with then-deputy White House Counsel David Leitch, prompting Leitch to e-mail then-Justice Department lawyer Kyle Sampson. Sampson had moved over to the Justice Department after working with Gonzales in the White House.

Sampson responded to Leitch that he had discussed the idea with Gonzales two weeks earlier and that they were considering several different options.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Wow. Exactly like Clinton.

 

[catfish]

There's a connection. I know there is, damn it.

Wow, and for all this time the Jews took the blame.

 

[Ishmael]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1

March 15, 2007 — New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House.

The e-mails also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel — weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers and was her idea alone.

Two independent sources in a position to know have described the contents of the e-mail exchange, which could be released as early as Friday. They put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter.

The e-mail exchange is dated in early January 2005, more than a month before the White House acknowledged it was considering firing all the U.S. attorneys — and while Gonzales still was White House counsel. On its face, the plan is not improper, inappropriate or even unusual: The President has the right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time, and presidents have done so when they took office.

What has made the issue a political firestorm is the White House's insistence that the idea came from Harriet Miers and was swiftly rejected.

White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters Tuesday that Miers had suggesting firing all 93 and that it was "her idea only." Snow said Miers' idea was quickly rejected by the Department of Justice.

However, Miers was Bush's staff secretary at that time in January 2005. She did not become White House counsel for another month, after Gonzales left to become attorney general.

The latest e-mails show that Gonzales and Rove both were involved in the discussion, and neither rejected it out of hand.

According to the e-mails, Rove raised the issue with then-deputy White House Counsel David Leitch, prompting Leitch to e-mail then-Justice Department lawyer Kyle Sampson. Sampson had moved over to the Justice Department after working with Gonzales in the White House.

Sampson responded to Leitch that he had discussed the idea with Gonzales two weeks earlier and that they were considering several different options.

And the point of the article beyond the reporter making a deadline is what?

Ishmael

 

[revelator]

And the point of the article beyond the reporter making a deadline is what?

The point is, everyone is lying about the firings. There have been so many contradictory justifications for the firings that I can't keep up with them.

If this is "business as usual," why lie about it - repeatedly, and badly?


It's not the se--- errr, the firings, it's the lying. What will we tell the children?

 

[jhuson]

Biggest political deflection in recent history. The issue was never about the blow job, it was about lying about it to a judge. Isn't that one of the charges that Libby is facing 25 years over?

But I do happen to agree that there should have never been an investigation initiated over a blow job. There was no evidence of a crime having been commited. The investigation created the crime. Just like Libby.

Ishmael

Somehow I have a hard time believing that you weren't cheering the BJ investigation along.

 

[Ishmael]

The point is, everyone is lying about the firings. There have been so many contradictory justifications for the firings that I can't keep up with them.

If this is "business as usual," why lie about it - repeatedly, and badly?


It's not the se--- errr, the firings, it's the lying. What will we tell the children?

There are three significant facts in the article.

1. The president can fire any attorney at anytime. Period.

2. Gonzales and Rove discussed the possibility of taking the Clinton step of firing all the attorneys. (They'd have been stupin not to have explored the possibility.)

3. Miers' name appears on no emails/memos released to date. (That does not take her out of the loop. It is possible that she broached the subject verbally. Miers has neither confirmed nor denied the statements made by Snow so far.)

The writer of the article leads the reader to makes inferences not supported by what meager facts are contained in the article.

Regardless, point #1 is the most salient point in the article. Further, they are politically appointive positions. To presume by any stretch of the imagination that politics isn't involved is naive. No matter how they come to the postion, politics will be involved. (Whether by election, congressional appointment, or senatorial appointment.)

All in all, still much ado over nothing. And both parties are handling it badly, although the Democrats are making political hay for all it's worth.

Ishmael

 

[Sir_Roger]

There's a connection. I know there is, damn it.

One assumes that you mean the Black Death, spread by the oriental flea. Prevalent in Europe 1347 to 1350 AD.

Long before the so called New World was discovered.
Is that correct Sir?