Bush Orders Rove Not To Testify

[eclectics]

And I didn't call anyone a moonbat.

But you have in the past......many, many times.

 

[DawnCt1]

Color me confused. But, exactly how do you move past assumptions - guilty or innocent of a crime - without investigating the situation?

Because someone makes an assumption, say for example that President Bush fired the US attorneys to cover up a crime, does not make that assumption worthy of investigation when there is no evidence. If your neighbor assumes that you have a still in your basement, should you be the subject of an investigation because of his ill thought out assumption?

 

[Tyler's Dad]

And that changes the end result HOW? It matters not how they got their jobs, they serve at the pleasure of the president.

That would make sense if they weren't only given their jobs because of a rider on the PAtriot Act. These attorneys were all hired after Gonzales and Co. added a part to the re-authorization of the Patriot Act that gave Gonzales the right to hire US Attorneys without Senate confirmation. From the sound of things, these attorneys were all contacted about cases they were working on by members of Congress. This IS illegal and against Congresses rules. Basically, they were using the Patriot Act, which was to fight terrorism, to appoint people that would be friendly to the administration. What doesn't stink about that?

 

[NYBlue1]

And I didn't call anyone a moonbat. I referred to a political contingent on the far left that collectively seems to suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Yet those people feel that they are right and the Bush supporters are the batty ones. Your right you did not directly call anybody anything yet the refrence was there and the message was delivered. if thats not the message you wanted to deliver than you should say that. otherwise it appears to be just a passive agressive round about way of calling anybody that agrees with this line of thinking crazy. I dont like the name calling or the infering of a possible namecalling, thats just me. It stings either way to be on the receiving end and even though, at least in my case, I dont dwell on message board arguments its just not neccesary.

 

[PoohnPglet]

Because someone makes an assumption, say for example that President Bush fired the US attorneys to cover up a crime, does not make that assumption worthy of investigation when there is no evidence. If your neighbor assumes that you have a still in your basement, should you be the subject of an investigation because of his ill thought out assumption?

Well, if the police showed up at my house and said my neighbor accused me of having a still in my basement and I didn't - well, I would show the police my basement. Wouldn't you?

 

[ConcKahuna]

Wow, such a fun thread!! Almost every other post leaves me something to laugh at!

So Dawn. Will you admit you were wrong? Again.

Not going to happen, ever!

Again, there have been no laws broken. He can fire the US attorneys anytime, anywhere. Impeachment is the bone that congress is dangling for the moonbats.

How do you know if laws have been broken, since he's doing his best to stop an investigation? If you ask me, if he had nothing to hide he would be presenting evidence to congress instead of firing people...

The point is, is that congress feels that laws MAY have been broken. They've launched an investigation and issued subpoenas. Bush is telling his people that they are to break the law and not answer the subpoenas/testify. Regardless of the ultimate findings of the original investigation (which in my personal opinion would find wrongdoing), Bush is breaking the law by obstructing justice and commanding others to break the law to apparently protect him.

Assumptions on your part does not constitute a crime on someone elses part.

Exactly!! After all, people only assumed that OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman!

Color me confused. But, exactly how do you move past assumptions - guilty or innocent of a crime - without investigating the situation?

Sheesh, some people! How dare you make sense!

And I didn't call anyone a moonbat. I referred to a political contingent on the far left that collectively seems to suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Is that the syndrome the country is suffering from because Bush is deranged?

I love that word

I agree, but for a while there I thought they meant those little fuzzy things from Alice in Wonderland..

Because someone makes an assumption, say for example that President Bush fired the US attorneys to cover up a crime, does not make that assumption worthy of investigation when there is no evidence. If your neighbor assumes that you have a still in your basement, should you be the subject of an investigation because of his ill thought out assumption?

Actually, this "assumption" as you called it is called "suspicion of a crime" to most people. And just because YOU support the person who may or may not be guilty of the crime, that doesn't mean it is ill thought-out, or not accurate.

 

[DawnCt1]

But you have in the past......many, many times.

No, I actually haven't. I have used it in the same context, in reference to the far left, that I have used it here.

 

[DawnCt1]

I love that word



Rich::

Actually I think its a cute word. Certainly cuter than wingnuts.

 

[cardaway]

I don't believe that I called anyone on this thread a "moonbat".

I didn't say you did now did I?

The rest was just as predcited. This time you were the one dishing it out, but of course to you it's still different somehow.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[Mary2e]

Mary, that term has been around for quite a long time, and frankly there are quite a few liberals who wear the tag proudly. It seems that anyone who supports the President is a "Bush apologist" but those who get up every morning with the sole purpose of waging war on this president are somehow "patriotic, troop supporting progressives. It cuts both ways.

It is the current and unfortunate level of the current political discourse.

The name calling started on the right with the Clinton witchhunt and has gotten worse and worse in the 7 years since.

I also feel the perjorative terms started on the right, and with right wing talk show hosts - ie druggie rushie. He fires people up on a daily basis and they run off to their internet boards and spew the same nonsense. I can almost time it.

It's a darned shame that people can no longer think for themselves, but have to rely on entertainers (rushie) to get their juices flowing and make their minds up for them.

 

[Spidey7]

Moonbat would actually make a great name for a Rock Band.

 

[Mary2e]

Because someone makes an assumption, say for example that President Bush fired the US attorneys to cover up a crime, does not make that assumption worthy of investigation when there is no evidence. If your neighbor assumes that you have a still in your basement, should you be the subject of an investigation because of his ill thought out assumption?

If your towns code enforcement officer feels having a still is against the rules and he can convince a prosecutor to give him a warrant, well, yes, you can be the subject of an investigation to look for the evidence. If you try to hide it, not only will you be charged with having a still, but obstruction.

Next.

 

[DawnCt1]

It is the current and unfortunate level of the current political discourse.

The name calling started on the right with the Clinton witchhunt and has gotten worse and worse in the 7 years since.

I also feel the perjorative terms started on the right, and with right wing talk show hosts - ie druggie rushie. He fires people up on a daily basis and they run off to their internet boards and spew the same nonsense. I can almost time it.

It's a darned shame that people can no longer think for themselves, but have to rely on entertainers (rushie) to get their juices flowing and make their minds up for them.

Dare I say that you are beginning to sound like the very same people who you accuse. Clinton WAS impeached. The charges were perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice. He was also disbarred. It may not have been important to everyone, but it was certainly important to Paula Jones who deserved her day in court. You know the trial in which Clinton settled out of court for $850,000.

 

[eclectics]

No, I actually haven't. I have used it in the same context, in reference to the far left, that I have used it here.

You know darn well the search function isn't working, but you have indeed called posters here (personally as a collective group) Moonbats. Not in a vague "them" sort of way either, but directly at us.

 

[DawnCt1]

If your towns code enforcement officer feels having a still is against the rules and he can convince a prosecutor to give him a warrant, well, yes, you can be the subject of an investigation to look for the evidence. If you try to hide it, not only will you be charged with having a still, but obstruction.

Next.

A "neighbor" isn't a code enforcement officer and a judge issues warrants based on evidence not on a hunch by a disgruntled neighbor. Of course the neighbor could be charged with filing a false police report but congress can investigate ad nauseum with no consequences to themselves.

 

[Mary2e]

Dare I say that you are beginning to sound like the very same people who you accuse. Clinton WAS impeached. The charges were perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice. He was also disbarred. It may not have been important to everyone, but it was certainly important to Paula Jones who deserved her day in court. You know the trial in which Clinton settled out of court for $850,000.

So... Clinton lied about a blow job, and made several errors in trying to cover it up.

Bush lied about Iraq, WMD, and anything else he could think of, and yet, no one is attempting perjury charges against him.

So, which lie is worse? Do you feel the witchhunt was warranted and yet this case is squeaky clean and cannot be investigated for, not only this matter, but matters of national importance.

I also don't think we should impeach Bush. Why should we waste taxpayer's money on it? Bush is wasting enough on a weekly basis. Nothing will change if we do.

But go right on about how Clinton was impeached for lying.... I know that. But Bush is lying too and no one is hunting him down.

 

[MerryPoppins]

Well, if the police showed up at my house and said my neighbor accused me of having a still in my basement and I didn't - well, I would show the police my basement. Wouldn't you?

I sure would...unless I had something to hide.

 

[Mary2e]

A "neighbor" isn't a code enforcement officer and a judge issues warrants based on evidence not on a hunch by a disgruntled neighbor. Of course the neighbor could be charged with filing a false police report but congress can investigate ad nauseum with no consequences to themselves.

Nice parse Dawn. That's not what I said.

The neighbor would have to call the code enforcement officer and convince him that there was, indeed, a still in the basement. At that time, the officer could attempt to get a warrant. If granted, and the still was not only in the basement, but appeared to be hidden, then not only can they charge the neighbor for the still, but also for obstruction.

 

[DISUNC]

Dare I say that you are beginning to sound like the very same people who you accuse. Clinton WAS impeached. The charges were perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice. He was also disbarred. It may not have been important to everyone, but it was certainly important to Paula Jones who deserved her day in court. You know the trial in which Clinton settled out of court for $850,000.

At least Clinton had enough regard for this country to cooperate with the Laws set forth.

Bush has nothing but contempt for this country & its people!

Impeach Bush Website
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer

 

[Mugg Mann]

No, I actually haven't. I have used it in the same context, in reference to the far left, that I have used it here.

No, you actually have. Here's a direct response you made to LakeAriel;

Your comments have absolutely no basis in reality. No American has had their "constitutional rights taken away. There will be NO IMPEACHMENT and the administration aren't criminals. Its Moonbat rhetoric that isn't even worth the time to respond to anymore.
http://disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1508259&page=3

A moonbat comment made directly to an individual.

Wash, rinse, repeat......

(Oh and PS, several members of this adminstration have already been found guilty of criminal conduct, so it's YOUR comments that have absolutely no basis in reality. Just a FYI....)