And now the NEXT Republican Congressional scandal: Randy Cunningham - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 11-30-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

You don't look at the letter BEHIND the name to determine if someone is immoral/corrupt.

BINGO!

We Have a Winner!

To me, saying that it is a new REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT scandal is like emphasizing your BLACK friend, when it is the scandal/friend that should be emphasized.

I mean, googling "Democrat Scandal" returns over 3,740,000 hits, and I know at least a few of them are the real deal.

Hell, we just had a Dem state rep self implode with an illicit affair and possession of meth. And do I even have to drag the Chicago Democrat corruption into the picture.

My position is that a vast number of politicians are crooked because the power that comes with the position appeals to the less than virtuous and can also corrupt those with less than stellar morals.

Elphaba · 11-30-2005, 03:13 PM

I think the only reason we are seeing more Republican corruption at the moment is that they are the party in power. The reverse is just as likely to be true if the Dems were in power. Why throw money at someone that can't do anything for you?

"Lobbyist" is a term that is likely surpassing "personal injury lawyers" to describe bottom feeding behavior.

Seaver · 11-30-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

And do I even have to drag the Chicago Democrat corruption into the picture.

Or New Orleans corruption?

The Dem. Senator who ended up enlisting 12 State National Guard Soldiers, 2 trucks, and 2 heloes in order to get items out of his house during the flood instead of allowing them to rescue people.

Marvelous Marv · 11-30-2005, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Can you name a democrat who was caught breaking into republican headquarters to steal information, and then spent years covering it up?

No, and you can't name a Republican who was. Unless you're saying that Nixon was caught at the Watergate.

Quote:

You didn't notice that he pled guilty?

Yes, I did. Your point?

Quote:

And I see you're dredging up Clinton again. The guy, btw, who was NOT convicted of anything. Why would you be doing that if not to attempt to distract from the real topic in here? Or are you just slinging mud?

I am demonstrating that in two examples, namely Cunningham and Nixon, the Republicans did not "deny, deny, deny" to the further detriment of the country. When it became obvious that their crimes would be dragged through the courts, they saved us from such a sorry spectacle.

You're also hairsplitting over the meaning of "convicted." It has been proven that Clinton lied under oath. The Arkansas bar took away his license to practice law. Do you contest either of those?

But I'm "slinging mud." Right.

Marvelous Marv · 11-30-2005, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

What I'm pointing to is more of a PR problem than a concern about who will actually end up behind bars. In the eyes of the majority of Americans, according to the polls, all five of those gentlemen are dirty as coal miners, and the perception is that there are more rats in the woodpile. Whether it's true or not, that perception is what the Repubs now have to deal with.

Considering that the LARGE majority of journalists identify themselves as liberals, and considering how the wording of polls affects the results, I'm not surprised. My opinion, not that anyone asked for it, is:

Cunningham: Way guilty
DeLay--a politician who really plays hardball, but he may not have broken any laws
Frist--Probably guilty
Libby and Rove--Trumped up charges over nothing. At least in the CIA spectacle. I can link to several articles that back up my opinion, but it's pretty much a waste of time, since everyone's mind is made up.

I think Elphaba hit it on the head--The party in power gets bought off more than the minority party.

Quote:

The grounds for Nixon's impeachment were so inassailiable and egregious that the GOP had no choice but to fall in line with them. Those congresspeople get no credit from me for voting the only politically feasible vote. Besides, I said THESE individuals. You've got to reach back 30-plus years to find a decent counter-example? The GOP of the 70s was NOT the GOP of today.

Actually, my point was that I couldn't find ANY Democrat that stepped down because he wanted to spare the country a further spectacle.

Elphaba · 11-30-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Considering that the LARGE majority of journalists identify themselves as liberals, and considering how the wording of polls affects the results, I'm not surprised.

There are studies about this? I would love to see your sources.

shakran · 11-30-2005, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

No, and you can't name a Republican who was. Unless you're saying that Nixon was caught at the Watergate.

Well yeah, actually I can. How about James McCord? Formerly of the FBI AND CIA, and security coordinator for the RNC and the committee to reelect the president, and watergate burglar.

He was just one of the 5. And of course there's Liddy. And Nixon didn't break in, but after he found out about it he tried to cover it up.

Quote:

I am demonstrating that in two examples, namely Cunningham and Nixon, the Republicans did not "deny, deny, deny" to the further detriment of the country.

You either don't know your history or you're trying to rewrite it. The whole watergate scandal was a result of republicans trying to "deny deny deny." If Tricky Dick had just come out and said "Hey I just found out these SOB's broke into the democratic headquarters. They've been fired, they'll be prosecuted, and I'm very sorry it happened and I'm gonna make sure stuff like that won' thappen again" he'd have served out his term unmolested. It was the subsequent coverup that got him in such hot water.

BTW I said this about Clinton back when he was impeached. If the dumbass had just come out and either said "Yeah I did it. Sorry." or pulled an LBJ and said "none of your goddamn business if I did it or not" he'd not have been impeached. Politicians on both sides of the fence need to learn that they'll be in a lot less trouble if they just fess up to their failings than if they try and hide them.

Quote:

You're also hairsplitting over the meaning of "convicted."

No, I'm not. Clinton was never convicted. Everyone knows OJ killed Nicole but he wasn't convicted either. Stating fact is not splitting hairs.

Quote:

It has been proven that Clinton lied under oath. The Arkansas bar took away his license to practice law. Do you contest either of those?

No, I don't. What I question is why you and others keep bringing Clinton up when someone points out wrongdoing by the current administration. I don't care if Clinton was a serial killer while in office - that wouldn't excuse the current candidate from responsibility for his actions. The fact that you guys keep bringing Clinton up shows me that you KNOW there's no defense for what the Bush administration has done, and you're trying to misdirect people so that they can't SEE that there's no excuse.

Quote:

But I'm "slinging mud." Right.

Yup.

pan6467 · 12-01-2005, 12:14 AM

Shakran,

Good points and I do agree, Nixon would have been ok if he had just come clean and held those responsible, responsible. Clinton also.

Both lied, both covered up.

I have said many times, IMHO, Nixon was in some ways the best president in my lifetime, followed by Clinton.

tecoyah · 12-02-2005, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I have said many times, IMHO, Nixon was in some ways the best president in my lifetime, followed by Clinton.

............Agreed..................

killinspiders · 12-02-2005, 05:40 AM

I notice how everyone talks like there are only two choices of party. Become a Libertarian! Let's show the great evil two that they are no longer "all that"! The government is FULL of corruption on every side. The politicians are only in it for the money and the power! It is WE who need to remind them WHO THEY WORK FOR! The only way we can do that is to be aware of what is going on, write to our congress people and other politicians, and VOTE VOTE VOTE!
It is good to see people paying attention!

Elphaba · 12-02-2005, 06:07 PM

Umm, killinspiders?

Partner, around these here parts, ya done threadjacked the topic. T'aint no killin' offense, but we shore do ask newcomers to town to read up on the rules and such.

PS: Love your sig line.

uncle phil · 12-07-2005, 05:55 PM

i don't try to foray into this forum too much but, in my humble opinion, Dwight David Eisenhower was the last republican president who upheld the ideals of his party...

host · 12-08-2005, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

i don't try to foray into this forum too much but, in my humble opinion, Dwight David Eisenhower was the last republican president who upheld the ideals of his party...

On the rnc.org website, on the right lower column, under "upcoming events", displays: <a href="http://www.rnc.org/Calendar/Detail.aspx?EventID=1158">12.08.05 - Representative Duke Cunningham's Birthday</a>

Happy birthday, "Duke"! It's great to see the GOP "stand by" even their extinguished members; the ones who plead guilty to compromising pentagon procurement of goods and services, for their own massive personal gain, during a time of war.

You can view Duke's "presents" here:

Quote:

http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.30173.html
IRS Displays Duke's Ill-Gotten Gains

Last Updated:
12-06-05 at 10:23PM

Antiques and home furnishings forfeited by former congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham are on display and being taken into custody Tuesday.

It was part of Cunningham’s plea agreement that his personal property be seized. Cunningham resigned from office after pleading guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes to steer business to defense contractors..........

I know from reading your posts that a number of you want the rest of us to believe that the wave of corruption that we are observing lately from numerous officials elected to high office is a "bi-partisan" problem; "they all do it", "both parties are equally guilty"...etc....etc... The excerpt below, critiquing a recent, political corruption "scorecard", published in the WaPo, by the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, and his response when challenged about the "spin" and contradiction in the criteria he has used to compare democrats to republicans, IMO, is an eye opener. Cillizza admits that an "editor" altered his column. The end result was to make the democrats appear "more" equal in the number of individuals implicated in crimes during the comparison period:

Quote:

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thef...k_the_fix.html
The Fix Takes Questions

New York, N.Y.: In your <a href="http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2005/11/political_scand.html">recent corruption roundup,</a> you set up some ground rules that you'll only deal with current members of Congress or governors. Yet, you broke your own rules by including Rep Frank Ballance (D) who resigned in June, 2004. You omitted Connecticut Governor John Rowland (R) who also resigned in June, 2004. Why break your own rules for one but not the other?

The only thing I can think of is that you made a list and found that there are a lot more Republicans than Democrats on the list. So in an effort to appeared unbiased, you had to find another Democrat.

Cillizza: This was an editorial mixup. In my original post, Ballance was not included since, as you rightly point out, he is not a sitting member of Congress. After an edit, Ballance was unnecessarily included for, frankly, balance. I did not read the final edit and therefore was unaware that Ballance had been added to the list. I apologize for my editor's error (he's been flogged). And let no man (or woman) say The Fix opposes full disclosure.

I invite anyone to back the claim that this wave of corruption is a bi-partisan phenomena. Please pick a recent time period and find more democrats in congress or in governor's offices who have been found to sell their political power and influence, than Cillizza of the WaPo was able to list, using the same time frame for all officials listed.

Please show us an argument that the oft demonized William Jefferson of N.O. has committed high crimes that rise to the level of Cunningham's or of this offense to our sensibilities:

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ership?mode=PF
House Republicans quietly pushing for new leadership
Voice concern about prospects for '06 elections

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | December 7, 2005

.........House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and his top lieutenants are seeking to avoid a divisive intra-party leadership fight. They engineered a scenario whereby the majority leader's position is being filled on a temporary basis through at least the end of the year by the number-three House Republican, majority whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, with other members of leadership taking on increased responsibilities.

In addition, Hastert has scheduled the first House session of 2006 for Jan. 31 -- after a holiday break of more than a month, and two weeks after senators are due to return to Washington. The late start gives DeLay, a Texas Republican, a greater amount of time with which to dispose of the charges, as new leadership elections could not occur until the House is back in session.

''I believe Mr. DeLay's situation will be resolved by then, and I believe it will be resolved to his satisfaction," Blunt said yesterday. ''Mr. DeLay is getting the swift movement in this case that he's asked for."

A Texas judge on Monday tossed out one of the three criminal charges DeLay was facing in connection with an alleged scheme to circumvent campaign-finance laws by funneling corporate contributions to candidates. But the judge let stand the most serious charges filed against DeLay: two felony money-laundering counts. No trial date has been set.

If new leadership elections are held, DeLay will stand little chance of reclaiming his post even if he is later vindicated, said Julian Zelizer, a congressional scholar at Boston University. DeLay will remain a political liability for Republican members, and House members will want to distance themselves more as next November's elections approach, Zelizer said.

''It's hard to imagine him or his allies being put back in office," Zelizer said.

''Once you get to the point of electing new leadership, the Republicans are going to want to separate themselves from him as much as possible.".............

Eventually, the sheeple will focus on all of this long and hard enough to change their minds about the current corruption being a "bi-partisan" problem.
The stench is coming predominently from the one party in power. The party that controls the decisions of who to investigate, and who to censure of to prosecute.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120601714.html
Editorial Pages
Mr. Cunningham's Lessons
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A24

IF IT WEREN'T for his excessive greed -- and an enterprising Copley News Service reporter named Marcus Stern, who first revealed his sleazy housing deal -- Randy "Duke" Cunningham might have been able to commit the perfect congressional crime.

The story of the San Diego Republican, who resigned from Congress last week after pleading guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors, is in part the saga of a single, flawed individual who succumbed to temptation in the form of a yacht, a Rolls-Royce and a Louis Philippe commode. But it also exposes a pair of systemic fault lines -- the explosion in congressional "earmarking" and the growth in secret defense spending programs -- whose confluence enabled his criminal behavior...........

.........In Mr. Cunningham's case, it's fair to ask: Where was the oversight from Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), who headed the defense subcommittee until January?...........

Ohhhhhh......here's Jerry...........!!!!!!!!

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines
Articles From Graft Case to Be Auctioned
............As the federal government prepared to sell off the furnishings that were part of his bribery scheme, Cunningham's former colleagues were trying to make sense of his fall as they returned from the Thanksgiving recess.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said he was "just seething" at Cunningham's behavior.

"I can't remember a time I've been more angry," Lewis said. "I don't know anybody around here who wasn't just amazed."

But wait......ohhhhh noooo!!!....not Jerry, too ????

Quote:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/expo...5/fallout.html
Co-conspirators’ largesse extended to many
By Josephine Hearn

Republican Reps. Tom DeLay (Texas), John Doolittle (Calif.) and Jerry Lewis (Calif.) all received at least $30,000 in donations — either through their campaign committee or their leadership PACs — from Wade, Wilkes, their family members and their companies’ PACs over the past four years. These totals do not include individual contributions from employees of these firms. Early this year, Lewis became the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Before that, he headed the defense appropriations subcommittee. Because of these high-profile roles, Lewis often receives more donations than most House members. Doolittle also sits on the Appropriations Committee.

But Cunningham, who was simply a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, received the most — at least $66,000 during the same period.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, received just over $28,000, as did Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.). Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.) was the recipient of $20,000.

Wilkes is a prominent Bush fundraiser, earning a designation as a “Bush pioneer” in 2004 for raising more than $100,000. If Wilkes is indicted, he will be the third Bush pioneer, after Abramoff and Ohio fundraiser Tom Noe, to be indicted this year..............

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/st...=la-news-state
Cunningham Figure Gave to Gov., Got 2 Board Seats
By Dan Morain
Times Staff Writer

December 8, 2005

SACRAMENTO — A businessman tied to the bribery scandal involving former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham donated more than $70,000 to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign committees and received two gubernatorial appointments.

At Schwarzenegger's behest, Brent Wilkes, founder of the government contractor ADCS Inc., resigned Nov. 29 from the Del Mar Fair Board and from another panel that oversees the leasing of state land for racetracks, said Margita Thompson, the governor's press secretary.

Schwarzenegger appointed Wilkes to the Del Mar board in April 2004 and to the State Race Track Leasing Commission last April. A seat on the Del Mar board is a sought-after post given the panel's association with the Del Mar racetrack, among the most successful tracks in the nation.

Starting with the 2003 recall campaign, Wilkes, his wife and his companies have given $73,000 to Schwarzenegger's campaign committees, according to filings with Secretary of State Bruce McPherson. One of Wilkes' business associates gave $15,000 to the governor's 2003 campaign.

Ned Wigglesworth of the watchdog group TheRestofUs.org called on Schwarzenegger to return the donations.

"In light of Cunningham's plea agreement … it is certainly incumbent upon the governor to answer whether these appointments were related to the contributions," Wigglesworth said. "At the very least it is the appearance of quid pro quo and at the very least the governor should answer questions."

When asked whether Wilkes' appointments were linked to the donations, Thompson said: "Absolutely not…. There is no connection at all."

Marty Wilson, a Schwarzenegger political aide who oversees the governor's fundraising, said that "at the present time" the money would not be returned.

One day before Wilkes quit the state posts, Cunningham, a Republican from Rancho Santa Fe, pleaded guilty to federal charges that he took $2.4 million in bribes and evaded more than $1 million in taxes. He also resigned from the House of Representatives.

<h3>According to Cunningham's plea agreement, Wilkes gave him more than $635,000 in bribes.</h3> Wilkes is not named in the Cunningham indictment or in the written plea agreement, but he is referred to as one of four unnamed co-conspirators, one of Wilkes' attorneys has said. That lawyer, Michael Lipman, did not return phone calls Wednesday.

Wilkes' company, ADCS, which is based in Poway, has received millions in federal contracts. According to the plea agreement, Cunningham pressured the Department of Defense to award contracts to ADCS, though it is not clear from the plea bargain that his intervention was pivotal.

Though ADCS appears to focus its efforts on winning federal contracts, the company also has done a small amount of business with the state. In 2001 and 2003, before Schwarzenegger took office, California selected ADCS as one of the vendors that could be hired to transform paper documents into computer images.

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...037627,00.html
Mar. 21, 2005

..........Ed Buckham's name was one you didn't hear much outside the secluded corridor where he worked on the first floor of the Capitol. But in that suite, which houses the majority whip's offices, Buckham was far more than an ordinary congressional aide in the three heady years following the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. Thanks to an unusually close and trusting relationship with his boss, Tom DeLay's chief of staff quietly became one of the most powerful people in Washington. "He was the guy DeLay turned to when he made a final decision," recalls a former aide to a member of the House Republican leadership, "and even after he made the final decision, the guy who could talk him out of it." What even fewer people outside that office knew was that the two shared a bond that transcended power and politics: Buckham, a licensed nondenominational minister, was also DeLay's pastor......

.......Buckham shared not only DeLay's religious faith but also his audacious vision for harnessing the financial and political clout of business and conservative interests to carry out the G.O.P. agenda and increase its majority in Congress. DeLay offered lobbyists the best seats they had ever had at the table, a say in legislative and political strategy, on the understanding that they in return would pour millions into DeLay's favored causes and candidates. In addition, he threatened to shut out lobbying shops that employed Democrats. In Washington that seamless coordination between his office and the lobbying corridor of K Street has become known as DeLay Inc. It developed the muscle to push or block pretty much everything DeLay asked for, from protecting tax breaks for low-wage garment manufacturers on the Northern Mariana Islands (where DeLay spent New Year's Day 1998 with his wife and Buckham) to creating a Medicare prescription-drug plan that critics say is a better deal for pharmaceutical companies than it is for seniors......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2501423_2.html
Lawmakers Under Scrutiny in Probe of Lobbyist (page 2)
Saturday, November 26, 2005; Page A01

Investigators are also gathering information about Abramoff's hiring of several congressional wives, sources said, as well as his referral of clients to Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbying and consulting firm run by former senior aides to DeLay. Financial disclosure forms show that the firm employed DeLay's wife, Christine, from 1998 to 2002.

Former Abramoff lobbying associates have said that Abramoff shared some of his high-paying clients with the group, including Malaysian interests, the Mississippi Choctaw Indian tribe and online gambling firms. Federal investigators have questioned some former Abramoff associates about whether those referrals were related to Christine DeLay's employment there, sources said.

Alexander Strategy Group is run by former DeLay senior staffers Edwin A. Buckham and Tony C. Rudy. Rudy served as DeLay's deputy chief of staff until 2001, when he took a job with Abramoff, and later moved on to join Buckham.

host · 12-08-2005, 05:22 AM

I know....I know....I can read it already; host...yer posting toooo much information !!! I don't make this stuff up....and you have to know it to discuss what is going on, unless you post here to disrupt the threads. C'mon....buckle down...get up to speed....question and challenge whatever I might have wrong here. Is anyone else outraged, and of the belief that Hastert should resign.....now?

Tell me again that this is all about "bi-partisan" corruption, in congress, in the white house, and in governor's mansions, all over the USA. That is what some of you....and much of the MSM, want the rest of us to believe.

Your house speaker, Dennis Hastert, wants to keep the House of Representatives closed for an extra two weeks at the start of the 2006 session, so this scumbag can have a better shot at regaining his house majority "leader" spot. Two questions for Hastert:

1.) Dennis, do you read the newspapers, watch TV news, or surf the net?

2.) What does it say about you...when you back "leaders" in you house, and in your party, like Delay and Pombo?

Some background....Bush fired the DOJ prosecutor, Mr. Black, who was investigating Abramoff's activities in the Northern Marianas in 2002. Karl Rove is said to have approved prosecutor Black's replacement. The replacement is a cousin of one the local politicians who Black was investigating, and the investigation ended. Congressman George Miller kept demanding that republican committee chairman Richard Pombo, launch an investigation into the Northern Marianas situation, and Pombo refused, until 5 months ago.

Pombo received $326,100 in campaign contributions from Indian tribes, apparently via Abramoff. The Abramoff/Delay preservation of the Northern Marianas as a minimum wage/labor law exempt "sweat shop" zone, was reported to include these quotes by Delay and countered by republican senator Murkowski, who went to the Marianas to view the worker's conditions for himself. The "deal" is that garments made there can be labeled, "Made In USA", and thus garner higher prices than garments from other low wage countries.

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/09/real.delay/
The real scandal of Tom DeLay
Monday, May 9, 2005 Posted: 12:14 PM EDT (1614 GMT)
.....Later, DeLay would tell The Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin that the low-wage, anti-union conditions of the Marianas constituted "a perfect petri dish of capitalism. It's like my Galapagos Island."

Contrast that with what then-Sen. Murkowski told me in a 1998 interview: "The last time we heard a justification that economic advances would be jeopardized if workers were treated properly was shortly before Appomattox.".

The following detail members of congress who received large amounts via Abramoff, and who had wives or key assistants hired by Abramoff. The governor elect of the Marianas, along with Michael Scanlon, are agreeing to co-operate with prosecutors. Hastert is in denial if he thinks that he can keep the congress closed long enough to put Tom Delay back "in charge", IMO.

Quote:

http://www.pacificislands.cc/pina/pi...rlpinaid=18756
GOVERNOR-ELECT Benigno R. Fitial says he will cooperate with federal authorities in the ongoing investigation of Rep. Tom Delay and former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whom he once described as his “close friends.”

House leadership spokesman Charles P. Reyes Jr. said Speaker Fitial “will comply with all the legal requirements asked of him.”

But Reyes said it’s unfair that Fitial’s name is always being associated with Delay, R-Texas, and Abramoff.
In April, when news about DeLay’s and Abramoff’s possible ethical violations broke, Fitial issued a statement in their defense.

“I join Congressman DeLay in condemning this unfair criticism, which has even gone to the extent of attacking the Northern Marianas for its efforts to rightfully defend itself against hostile federal takeover attempts orchestrated by partisan political groups and other liberal special interest groups,” said Fitial in a statement issued on April 20.

Back then, Fitial said certain left-leaning parties hostile to the local garment industry are “attempting to undermine” his 2005 gubernatorial bid by linking him to the controversy surrounding DeLay and Abramoff, whom Fitial credited as the individuals who “successfully thwarted repeated federal takeover attempts against the CNMI.”

Quote:

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArt...ArticleID=1743
Stranger Than Paradise Feature: 9/10/2004
How Tom DeLay's deregulatory ideology stretched to the island of Saipan

...... Stories about the Marianas reached George Miller, a congressman who represents the East Bay area near San Francisco. Miller is the ranking Democrat of the House Committee on Resources, which has jurisdiction over U.S. territories and commonwealths. In 1992, when the Democrats still controlled the House, he chaired the committee and convened a hearing on the garment industry in the Marianas (known in U.S. federal-speak as CNMI for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). Miller said at the hearing, “I am concerned by the attitude that it is acceptable to underpay and mistreat alien workers who are willing to accept substandard conditions in the CNMI that are better than their homeland. It is unacceptable when U.S. farmers abuse Mexican field workers, and it is unacceptable when CNMI garment manufacturers abuse Chinese workers. It cannot be tolerated anywhere.”.......

Quote:

http://www.forward.com/campaignconfi...ves/001927.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/po.../06ethics.html

Per NYT:
Justice Department Is Asked to Widen Inquiry of Lobbyist
By PHILIP SHENON
Published: July 6, 2005
WASHINGTON, July 5 - Criminal investigators at the Justice Department have been asked by a House committee to consider broadening their corruption investigation of a Washington lobbyist whose ties to Tom DeLay, the House Republican leader, and other prominent lawmakers are the subject of inquiries throughout the government, Congressional officials disclosed on Tuesday.

The request about the investigation of the lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, was made in a letter last week to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales from the Republican chairman and the senior Democrat on the House Resources Committee.

The letter, dated June 30, cited a flurry of accusations of wrongdoing involving Mr. Abramoff's multimillion-dollar lobbying on behalf of the Northern Mariana Islands, a small American commonwealth in the Pacific, and said that "any allegations of criminal matters of this sort are best addressed to the Department of Justice."

The Justice Department has refused to discuss details of its investigation of Mr. Abramoff, which began more than a year ago. Congressional officials who are trying to monitor the investigation say that it has focused until now on accusations that Mr. Abramoff defrauded Indian tribes who paid him millions of dollars in lobbying fees on behalf of their gambling operations.

The Resources Committee request could suggest new scrutiny for Mr. DeLay, because he worked closely with Mr. Abramoff for years to block Washington from imposing the federal minimum wage on large clothing factories in the Northern Marianas. Human rights groups have long criticized the factories, which employ mostly migrant Asian workers.

Quote:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivall...ews/ci_3287617
Article Last Updated: 12/07/2005 02:25 PM
Pombo's donations under fire
U.S. representative from Tracy has collected $326,100 from tribes and affiliates since 1999
By Michael DoyleTHE FRESNO BEE
Inside Bay Area
WASHINGTON — Tribal lobbyist Jack Abramoff sent a calling card of sorts when Tracy Republican Richard Pombo became chairman of the House Resources Committee.

Two weeks after Pombo took over the committee that oversees tribal issues in January 2003, Abramoff contributed $2,000 to Pombo's re-election effort. Later that year, Abramoff gave an additional $5,000 to Pombo's leadership committee.

"He was a big Republican donor, and I had become chairman," Pombo said Monday night, "and he obviously had a lot of clients who had business before the committee."

Some of those clients likewise began cutting checks for Pombo once he vaulted over more senior members and became committee chairman. These include at least $27,000 from members of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts, who would benefit from tribal recognition legislation backed by Pombo.

Nor have Abramoff and the Mashpee Wampanoag been alone in their targeting of the one-time Tracy City Council member. Since 1999, Pombo has collected $326,100 from tribes and tribal members, a tally by Political Money Line shows. The bulk of that has come following his 2003 promotion to chairman, and it's made him the third leading recipient of tribal funds in Congress.

"Obviously, they want to have some access," Pombo said of the contributors,

Quote:

<a href="www.house.gov/georgemiller/newweb/cnmifollowup.pdf+&hl=en">http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:rD5Dvin9PzYJ:www.house.gov/georgemiller/newweb/cnmifollowup.pdf+&hl=en</a>
May 11, 2005

The Honorable Richard Pombo
Chairman, Committee on Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Recent media reports have uncovered information about suspected wrongdoings by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his associates, and clients in the CNMI. This new information adds additional weight to my request of April 14, 2005 that you begin a thorough investigation of the matter by the Committee on Resources which has jurisdiction over territorial affairs. Your staff asked for documents associated with my request, and on April 22 I provided 428 pages of evidentiary materials related to my initial request to you.

In my April 14 letter to you, (please note that it was in fact April 14 and not April 12 as stated in your letter to me of May 9), I wrote that in 1999, two men associated with then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay - Ed Buckham, a one-time chief of staff who later became the head of ARMPAC, and Mike Scanlon, a DeLay spokesman - were reportedly involved in an effort to influence the election of the Speaker to the CNMI House of Representatives. I have since learned of additional evidence to suggest these two men may have traded political favors to sway the election in favor of a candidate most likely to renew a contract with lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

In 1999, Mr. Abramoff's contract with the CNMI government was suspended, with no clear prospect of renewal.1 At the same time, an Abramoff supporter, Mr. Benigno Fitial, was a candidate for Speaker of the CNMI's House of Representatives. Mr. Fitial, however, was two votes behind his opponent, Mr. Heinz S. Hofschneider, according to press reports of a letter signed by 10 out of the 12 CNMI Republican House members in support of Mr. Hofschneider, including Representative Alejo Mendiola and Representative Norman S. Palacios. These 10 Republican legislators were enough to secure Mr. Hofschneider the election.2

New reports by the Los Angeles Times and Marianas Variety confirm that in 1999 Mr. Fitial did indeed meet with Mr. Buckham and Mr. Scanlon - who was still on Mr. DeLay's payroll at the time. At the meeting, Mr. Fitial recommended that the two men meet with Representatives Mendiola and Palacios, both of whom had signed the letter in support of Mr. Hofschneider, to encourage them to switch their votes for Speaker.3

When Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Buckham met with the two legislators, they reportedly promised to help secure money for local projects in exchange for their votes for Mr. Fitial, including federal resources for repairing a breakwater on the island of Tinian, a priority for Mr. Palacios. They were successful, and Mr. Fitial was elected Speaker. Mr. Abramoff's contract was subsequently renewed.4

The following year, Congress passed one appropriations bill in October that included $150,000 for the breakwater restoration project in Mr. Palacios' district and another appropriations bill in May that listed funding for an airport repaving project in Rota in the committee report as a priority for discretionary grants. The Rota project was located on the island that Mr. Mendiola represented.5

Mr. DeLay was a member of the conference committee on the bill that included the breakwater project, as well as a member of the subcommittee that approved the transportation project. His aide, Mr. Scanlon, was on the appropriations committee payroll when he traveled to the Mariana Islands with Mr. Buckham to secure Mr. Fitial's election as Speaker.6

This new information makes it even more imperative that you launch a bipartisan and thorough investigation into potential unethical and illegal behavior by Mr. Abramoff and others with respect to U.S. territorial matters, including whether there was inappropriate congressional interference into CNMI elections. As you may already be aware, both the CNMI legislature and Governor Babauta's office have publicly stated that they have no objection to such a congressional investigation.7

Yesterday, I received your letter requesting additional documents concerning my initial request and the substantial information I have already provided to you. You asked that, in order "to better evaluate the need for a Congressional investigation," I should submit to you "a full and complete document log" that is "bound in a three ring binder, annotated, and separated with a formal list of items included in the piece; each entry should include its source and author, its date, and the number of pages." You further requested "any correspondence with nongovernmental entities in the related history of this request." Providing such information, you wrote, will assure the Committee "an organized and thorough foundation of information."

With all due respect, we are talking about investigating charges of serious wrongdoing, not the parameters of a term paper. I have served in Congress and on the Resources Committee for more than 30 years, chaired or served as ranking member of three full committees, and initiated numerous substantive investigations. You now possess more than enough information to initiate an investigation into the very serious charges about Mr. Abramoff's lobbying activities as they pertain to the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee. Your request pertaining to binder types, annotation, pagination and tabulation trivializes these allegations and the widening public concerns about the integrity of the Congress.

As Chairman, you have the resources, the staff, and the authority, including the authority to issue subpoenas, to obtain any and all necessary documents and information related to the Mariana Islands and potential abuses in Congress. I stated at the outset that I looked forward to working with you on this request, and I have provided you substantial additional information at your request. In addition, I am providing to you today copies of the Department of Interior reports, obtained at my request on your behalf, and the documents associated with the information mentioned in today's letter.

The only question now is whether you are or are not going to launch this important investigation. For years, my colleagues and I have sought stricter oversight of conditions and events in the CNMI but have met with resistance and inactivity from committee leaders. Failure to pursue this investigation in light of the information I have already provided to you and your staff would be a serious abdication of this Committee's responsibility to oversee a critical area of its jurisdiction, and would ignore the public interest in these widely reported and well-substantiated charges.

Thank you very much for considering this request. I look forward to your response as to whether or not you will launch this investigation and I look forward to working with you to uncover all the facts associated with these activities.

Sincerely,

GEORGE MILLER
Member of Congress

1 Los Angeles Times, 5/6/05.
2 Marianas Variety, 11/24/99, 12/17/99.
3 Los Angeles Times, 5/6/05, Marianas Variety, 4/29/05.
4 Marianas Variety, 12/17/99, Los Angeles Times, 5/6/05.
5 Los Angeles Times, 4/6/05
6 Los Angeles Times, 5/6/05.
7 Saipan Tribune, 4/17/05.

Quote:

http://galvestondailynews.com/story....9d24435d0c3d0e
DeLay disputes charges of abuse in Saipan
By Marty Schladen
The Daily News

Published May 15, 2005
“Incredible lies” was the way House Majority Leader Tom DeLay described charges that some foreign workers on Saipan labored in sweatshops in the 1990s while others were forced into sex slavery.

DeLay’s vehement denials come despite findings by two federal agencies and by congressmen from both parties that the charges were true.

Quote:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:c...olumn%22&hl=en
DeLay's worst: a dirty drama of bondage
May 10, 2005
.........But the question arises: Is the pond hop to historic links the worst thing the Texas Republican has ever done? Hardly. There are many qualified candidates, but one stands out for its squalor. That's DeLay's personal campaign to ensure that garment industry sweatshop workers and sex slaves in the Northern Mariana Islands - a U.S. territory - were exploited in a system that resembled indentured servitude............

Quote:

<a href="http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache

WV3345E9KIJ:www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_4269152,00.html+&hl=en">www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_4269152,00.html</a>

Abramoff probe broader than first thought

By BRODY MULLINS, The Wall Street Journal
November 27, 2005

......any suggestion that Doolittle "may have had some improper involvement in matters recently disclosed about Mr. Abramoff and others comes as a complete surprise and is simply ridiculous."

Prosecutors also are investigating at least 17 current and former congressional aides, about half of whom later took lobbying jobs with Abramoff, say lawyers and others involved in the case. Five of the former aides, including Tony Rudy, Ed Buckham and Susan Hirschmann, worked for DeLay. The three were top aides to DeLay and are now Washington lobbyists. None returned calls or e-mails seeking comment. ............

Quote:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politi...14757775c.html
Doolittle's dealings draw closer scrutiny November 30, 2005

....WASHINGTON - For more than a year, Rep. John Doolittle's connections with Jack Abramoff, a one-time high-flying Washington lobbyist, have made occasional news.

A company run by Doolittle's wife did work for Abramoff, and the grand jury investigating his activities served her with a subpoena. Doolittle belatedly reported using Abramoff's skybox for a fundraiser. A former Doolittle staffer had joined Abramoff's lobbying team. And records show Abramoff, his associates and their clients, primarily Indian tribes, have contributed at least $140,000 to the Roseville Republican's campaigns and political action committees since 1999....

........Doolittle's office has described Abramoff as a "close friend" of the congressman. Even if that relationship does not draw Doolittle directly into the Abramoff investigation, it has become volatile fodder for the 2006 Republican primary, in which he is being challenged by Auburn City Councilman Mike Holmes.

"Representative Doolittle presents himself as a person of high moral values," Holmes said Tuesday. "This relationship with Abramoff and the fact that he takes money from casinos when he is against casino gambling makes one wonder what his ethics really are."

The connections between Doolittle and Abramoff, who already is under indictment in a separate bank-fraud investigation, are extensive.

Doolittle's wife, Julie, did fundraising work for Abramoff between August 2002 and March 2003. Her records were subpoenaed last year by the Abramoff grand jury.

A former Doolittle staffer, Kevin Ring, later joined Abramoff's lobbying shop and recently cited the Fifth Amendment in declining to answer questions before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee about his activities.

In the past five years, Abramoff, Ring and their clients and associates have put $140,000 into Doolittle's campaign and leadership political action committee coffers, records show.

Abramoff personally contributed $4,000 to Doolittle's re-election committee, while a handful of associates, including Ring, gave another $9,000.

Meanwhile, Abramoff's tribal clients and lobbying associates gave substantially to the congressman's PACs.

As much as $92,000 flowed to his Superior California Federal Leadership PAC since 2002, another $20,000 went to Doolittle's state leadership PAC, and $15,000 to a PAC Doolittle controlled for a conservative Republican group called the Conservative Action Team.

All of the contributions appear to fall within campaign finance limits, and the law permits members of Congress to accept donations from tribes, lobbyists and former employees. The issue for investigators looking into the Abramoff scandal is whether any acts by elected officials were expected, promised or received in exchange for contributions.

Some of the tribal contributions occurred about the time Doolittle signed onto a congressional letter opposing the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians' request for a new casino in Louisiana, which two of Abramoff's tribal clients saw as unwanted competition.

"It should come as no surprise that Congressman Doolittle would sign a letter opposing Indian gaming since he has an established, 25-year record of fighting against the expansion of all forms of gaming here in California and across the country," Blackann said. "To suggest that the reason he signed a letter along with 35 other members of Congress opposing the establishment of a casino was because of anything other than his long-held anti-gaming position is both ludicrous and insulting."

Doolittle also used a popular Capitol Hill restaurant that Abramoff once owned, Signatures, for fundraising events. He held a 1999 fundraiser at Abramoff's skybox at Washington's MCI Center that coincided with a game between the Washington Wizards and the Sacramento Kings.

After reports that Doolittle had failed to report the skybox use to the Federal Election Commission, which he called an oversight, the congressman last year belatedly sent Abramoff's law firm $1,040 for its use.

Julie Doolittle operates a political fundraising and events-planning business out of the couple's home in suburban Oakton, Va.

Last year, a grand jury looking into Abramoff's tangled activities subpoenaed Julie Doolittle and her company, Sierra Dominion, for its records.

Julie Doolittle's attorney, William Stauffer Jr., told The Bee last year that Julie Doolittle did not do any work for Indian tribes and that the grand jury's interest appeared to be limited to her association with one of Abramoff's many business spin-offs, the Capitol Athletic Foundation.

Stauffer said Julie Doolittle was public relations director for the foundation. According to other reports at the time, the foundation raised money in part for an Orthodox Jewish school in Washington that has since closed.

While Julie Doolittle's job involved planning and marketing services, Stauffer said the event she was hired to handle never came off because of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Stauffer said last year that Julie Doolittle was never called to testify before the grand jury and that he regarded the handover of requested documents as an end to the matter. On Tuesday, Stauffer essentially reiterated that comment. He said there have been "no developments" since then, "nor are any changes or developments expected."..........

Marvelous Marv · 12-10-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

There are studies about this? I would love to see your sources.

Sorry, I've been busy.

I will need to restate what I said earlier--the part about the "LARGE majority."

Here's my source. I highlighted what I thought was particularly appropriate, although for accuracy, I will state that calling it a "majority" is inaccurate.

Link

Quote:

6/7/04
By John Leo
Liberal media? I'm shocked!

A new survey by the Pew Research Center says journalists have political and ideological leanings more liberal than those of the general public. Or, as a sensible headline might have put it: "Researchers ferret out the obvious yet again." One amused blogger wrote: "In other news, a second Pew study shows that the Earth is round and that the government's habit of taxing its citizens is likely to continue."

Pew reports that just 7 percent of journalists and news executives call themselves conservative, compared with 33 percent of the general public. The self-identified liberals (34 percent) are five times as common as conservatives in the news business. As you might imagine, this got very little play in the mainstream media. Howard Kurtz did a good job with it at the Washington Post. But that was about it. Those who did report or comment on the survey tended to play up the large number of news people (54 percent) who call themselves moderate. Why is it such a big deal to have a newsroom that's only a third liberal? asked Eric Alterman, author of What Liberal Media?

I would say that the big deal is that media workers are becoming more liberal at a fairly rapid pace--up from 22 percent nine years ago to 34 percent now, according to Pew. It would be a bigger deal if the hiring of liberals reached the point (as it has in the academic world) where conservatives don't bother to apply for jobs.

In addition, there is debate over what "moderate" means in the survey. My experience is that liberal journalists tend to think of themselves as representing the mainstream, so in these self-identification polls, "moderate" usually translates to "liberal." On the few social questions asked in the survey, most of the moderates sounded fairly liberal. Asked whether homosexuality should be approved of by society, 88 percent of journalists agreed, compared with only 51 percent of Americans.
Some 82 percent of the journalists were able to list a news organization that was "especially conservative" (most named Fox News), but an amazing 62 percent could not name any news organization that struck them as "especially liberal." Good grief. Even 60 percent of the Homer Simpson family could probably figure out that the New York Times or National Public Radio qualify as liberal.

In response to the survey, some argue that personal social and political views make no difference if a reporter plays the story straight. Well, yes. But nearly half of those polled told Pew that journalists too often let their ideological views color their work. This is a devastating admission, something like an umpire's union reporting that half its membership likes to favor the home team. Even apart from loaded reporting, the selection and framing of news stories have a way of reflecting the opinions of editors. That's why the steady march toward a more liberal newsroom is so puzzling. The news media have to cope with a declining readership and viewership and intense scrutiny of their wayward practices by right-wing outlets and relentlessly critical bloggers. Yet the mainstream media have only those few in-house conservatives who might warn their bosses when news reports are skewing left.

Why does the news business keep hiring more and more people who disagree sharply with the customers, many of whom are already stampeding out the door for a variety of reasons? One explanation is that national journalism is now an elite profession, staffed by people--black and white, female and male--who went to elite colleges and who share the conventional social views of their class. This was not true a generation ago. When I was at the New York Times, the leadership was full of people who had gone to the wrong schools and fought their way up with brains and talent. Two desks away from mine was McCandlish Phillips, a born-again Christian who read the Bible during every break, no matter how brief. Phillips was a legendary reporter, rightly treated with awe by the staff, but I doubt he would be hired by most news organizations today. He prayed a lot and had no college degree.

The news business is deeply concerned--I would say obsessed--with diversity, but it has a narrow and cramped view of the word, rarely applying it to background and social attitudes. Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew survey, said the fact that "conservatives are not very well represented" is having an effect. He added: "This is something journalists should worry about. Maybe diversity in the newsroom needs to mean more than ethnic and gender diversity." Do tell. A great many thick skulls still must be penetrated by this idea. But eventually it will get through.

Marvelous Marv · 12-10-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

No, I don't. What I question is why you and others keep bringing Clinton up when someone points out wrongdoing by the current administration. I don't care if Clinton was a serial killer while in office - that wouldn't excuse the current candidate from responsibility for his actions. The fact that you guys keep bringing Clinton up shows me that you KNOW there's no defense for what the Bush administration has done, and you're trying to misdirect people so that they can't SEE that there's no excuse.

I kept promising myself I wasn't going to do this, but I guess the part about not caring if he was a serial killer (but Bush LIED!) put me over the edge. That, and two people saying Clinton was "one of the best presidents in [their] lifetime."

No, and to paraphrase Politicophile, I will not put up with the current liberal hypocrisy, namely, that Bush should be removed from office for doing a tenth (maybe) of what Clinton got away with, namely, but not limited to:

His "wife" trying to nationalize 17% of the nation's private economy through her heavy-handed plan for socialized medicine.

Major Democratic campaign contributors sold and transfered vital American nuclear, missile, and satellite technology to avowed enemies of freedom, and of the United States. [This was the WORST offense, in my opinion, and I can't think of another politician particularly a president, who would have even CONSIDERED such a thing.]

There were wholesale violations of basic campaign finance laws. Then we saw the Democrats and the Clintonistas engage in a concerted effort to make sure that none of these campaign finance law violations were subject to a serious criminal investigation.

Five members of Clinton's Cabinet came under criminal investigation.

Thirty-three connected to the Clinton administration were convicted of crimes.

The Lincoln bedroom in the White House was turned into a high-priced five-star hotel almost 600 times, with the basic rate being a huge campaign donation to the Democrats.

Seats on government overseas trade missions were sold to the highest bidders --- for campaign donations.

Monica.

The president groped and fondled a woman who came to him for help in securing a White House job --- wrapping up the sordid episode by taking her hand, and forcing it into his crotch.

Forty-five witnesses in criminal investigations or critics of the Clinton administration were subjected to IRS audits.

Five women who were said to have been associated with Bill Clinton complain publicly of physical threats having been made against them.

Hillary Clinton issued a 42 paragraph sworn statement to a House investigating committee investigating Clinton wrongdoings, and in those 42 paragraphs, she used the phrase "I don't recall" or its equivalent no less than 50 times. Even Randy Cunningham didn't feed us THAT crap.

Bill Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in portions of his testimony about Paula Jones 271 times.

Other Clinton administration friends and officials said the words "I don't recall" or its equivalent a total of 6,125 times before various investigating committees --- for a grand forgetfulness average of 235 times per person.

He lied under oath - several times.

He used the powers of his office to obstruct justice and to deny a private American citizen her constitutionally guaranteed right to a day in court.

American servicemen were scattered to nearly 100 foreign nations to serve as glorified cops, and cafeteria workers in various international "meals on wheels" schemes.

Aspirin factories in foreign countries were bombed to divert attention from presidential scandals.

Bodies of dead American servicemen were dragged through the streets of half assed inconsequential foreign dog-patch nations by mobs of people who aren't fit to utter the phrase, "would you like french fries with that."

He agonized over what the definition of "is" is.

He refused to personally respond to a very credible accusation of a violent rape.

Almost one thousand confidential FBI files of those not friendly to the president's political agenda were gathered by former bar bouncers working in White House security positions --- with absolutely no consequences. [Yet people complain about the Patriot Act.]

[My second-place winner of worst offenses] In 1996 the Democrats rushed to naturalize tens of thousands of [some sources say 650,000] illegal aliens, while ignoring the legal requirement for background checks, in time for them to vote Democratic in the election. In the process they included thousands of violent felons ... for their votes. There is also evidence that the perpetrators of 9/11 were allowed to enter the country then.
========================================================

I give credit to Neal Boortz for compiling this partial list. I give very little credit to Clinton for what he did during his term in office.

ratbastid · 12-10-2005, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I give very little credit to Clinton for what he did during his term in office.

That's nice. One thing though: THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT THAT.

You've now done precisely what you were just accused of: rather than dealing with the issues in front of you, you've launched six-plus years back in time to drag the last president through the mud. It's a total non-sequitur, but it neatly changes the focus of the discussion.

We're not TALKING about Clinton. He's on the lecture circuit now. Who the hell cares? We're talking about CURRENT malfeasance. The current round of felons happens to largely be Republican. But you're not interested in talking about THAT, are you?

I'm now quite convinced you have no defense for your sullied golden boys. The only thing you can do is say, "Yeah, well..... Clinton!"

Ustwo · 12-10-2005, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

That's nice. One thing though: THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT THAT.

Its all about that, you started it as a 'I hate republican's' thread, this is the natural progression.

You reap what you sow.

Lebell · 12-10-2005, 11:01 PM

Host,

I have pretty much decided to pass on further discussion with you, but I cannot believe what you have said about corruption being somehow beholden to one party, specifically the Republicans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Host

I invite anyone to back the claim that this wave of corruption is a bi-partisan phenomena.

One of the reasons I have chosen to disengage from discussion with you is that I don't have your amount of free time (nor desire) to peruse the web for articles political. But in this case, it took me less than five minutes of time (as I knew it would).

http://boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm

Quote:

William Jefferson Clinton- Impeached by the House of Representatives over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Scandals include Whitewater - Travelgate Gennifer Flowersgate - Filegate - Vince Fostergate - Whitewater Billing Recordsgate - Paula Jonesgate- Lincoln Bedroomgate - Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate - Lippogate - Chinagate - The Lewinsky Affair - Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate - Kathleen Willeygate - Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate - Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate - Jaunita Broaddrick Gate - Lootergate - Pardongate

Edward Moore Kennedy - Democrat - U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.

Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

DNC - The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct.

Sandy Berger - Democrat - National Security Advisor during the Clinton Administration. Berger became the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings.

Robert Torricelli - Democrat - Withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election because of controversy over personal gifts he took from a major campaign donor and questions about campaign donations from 1996.

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Jesse Jackson - Democrat - Democratic candidate for President. Admitted to having an extramarital affair and fathering a illegitimate child.

Gary Condit - Democrat - US Democratic Congressman from California. Condit had an affair with an intern. Condit, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing. No charges were ever filed against Condit. Her remains were discovered in a Washington DC park..

Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde - Democrat - the son of newly elected U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, was booked on charges of criminal damage to property for allegedly slashing tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party for use in Election Day voter turnout efforts.

Daniel David Rostenkowski - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1959 to 1995. Indicted on 17 felony charges- pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds and sentenced to seventeen months in federal prison.

Melvin Jay Reynolds - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. Convicted on sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison.

Charles Coles Diggs, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan from 1955 to 1980. Convicted on eleven counts of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms- sentenced to three years in prison.

George Rogers - Democrat - Massachusetts State House of Representatives from 1965 to 1970. M000ember of Massachusetts State Senate from 1975 to 1978. Convicted of bribery in 1978 and sentenced to two years in prison.

Don Siegelman - Democrat Governor Alabama - indicted in a bid-rigging scheme involving a maternity-care program. The charges accused Siegelman and his former chief of staff of helping Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo rig bids. Siegelman was accused of moving $550,000 from the state education budget to the State Fire College in Tuscaloosa so Bobo could use the money to pay off a competitor for a state contract for maternity care.

John Murtha, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

James C. Green - Democrat - North Carolina State House of Representatives from 1961 to 1977. Charged with accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI agent, but was acquitted. Convicted of tax evasion in 1997.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Raymond Lederer - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

Harrison Arlington Williams, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1959 to 1970. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Allegedly accepted an 18% interest in a titanium mine. Convicted of nine counts of bribery, conspiracy, receiving an unlawful gratuity, conflict of interest, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $50,000.

Frank Thompson, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1955 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting, convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Sentenced to three years in prison

Michael Joseph Myers - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and conspiracy; sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000; expelled from the House of Representatives on October 2, 1980.

John Michael Murphy - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1963 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, and accepting an illegal gratuity. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

John Wilson Jenrette, Jr - Democrat - U.S. Representative from South Carolina from 1975 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to prison

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Alcee Lamar Hastings - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida. Impeached and removed from office as federal judge in 1989 over bribery charges.

Marion Barry - Democrat - mayor of Washington, D.C., from 1979 to 1991 and again from 1995 to 1999. Convicted of cocaine possession after being caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine. Sentenced to six months in prison.

Mario Biaggi - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1969 to 1988. Indicted on federal charges that he had accepted bribes in return for influence on federal contracts.Convicted of obstructing justice and accepting illegal gratuities. Tried in 1988 on federal racketeering charges and convicted on 15 felony counts.

Lee Alexander - Democrat - Mayor of Syracuse, N.Y. from 1970 to 1985. Was indicted over a $1.5 million kickback scandal. Pleaded guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Served six years in prison.

Bill Campbell - Democrat - Mayor of Atlanta. Indicted and charged with fraud over claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts.

Frank Ballance - Democrat - Congressman North Carolina. Pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering related to mishandling of money by his charitable foundation.

Hazel O'Leary - Democrat - Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration - O'leary took trips all over the world as Secretary with as many 50 staff members and at times rented a plane, which was used by Madonna during her concert tours.

Lafayette Thomas - Democrat - Candidate for Tennessee State House of Representatives in 1954. Sheriff of Davidson County, from 1972 to 1990. Indicted in federal court on 54 counts of abusing his power as sheriff. Pleaded guilty to theft and mail fraud; sentenced to five years in prison.

Mary Rose Oakar - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1977 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of funneling $16,000 through fake donors.

David Giles - Democrat - candidate for U.S. Representative from Washington in 1986 and 1990. Convicted in June 2000 of child rape.

Edward Mezvinsky - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Iowa from 1973 to 1977. Indicted on 56 federal fraud charges.

Lena Swanson - Democrat - Member of Washington State Senate in 1997. Pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting unlawful payments from veterans and former prisoners of war.

Abraham J. Hirschfeld - Democrat - candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner.

Henry Cisneros - Democrat - U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI.

James A. Traficant Jr. - Member of House of Representatives from Ohio. Expelled from Congress after being convicted of corruption charges. Sentenced today to eight years in prison for accepting bribes and kickbacks.

John Doug Hays - Democrat - member of Kentucky State Senate from 1980 to 1982 Found guilty of mail fraud for submitting false campaign reports stemming from an unsuccessful run for judge. He was sentenced to six months in prison to be followed by six months of home confinement and three years of probation.

Henry J. Cianfrani - Democrat - Pennsylvania State Senate from 1967 to 1976. Convicted on federal charges of racketeering and mail fraud for padding his Senate payroll. Sentenced to five years in federal prison.

David Hall - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1971 to 1975. Indicted on extortion and conspiracy charges. Convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

John A. Celona - Democrat - A former state senator was charged with the three counts of mail fraud. Federal prosecutors accused him of defrauding the state and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from CVS Corp. and others while serving in the legislature. Celona has agreed to plead guilty to taking money from the CVS pharmacy chain and other companies that had interest in legislation. Under the deal, Celona agreed to cooperate with investigators. He faces up to five years in federal prison on each of the three counts and a $250,000 fine

Allan Turner Howe - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Utah from 1975 to 1977. Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Jerry Cosentino - Democrat - Illinois State Treasurer. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud - fined $5,000 and sentenced to nine months home confinement.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Louisiana from 1961 to 19 79. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

Albert G. Bustamante - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Texas from 1985 to 1993. Convicted in 1993 on racketeering and bribery charges and sentenced to prison.

Lawrence Jack Smith - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida from 1983 to 1993. Sentenced to three months in federal prison for tax evasion.

David Lee Walters - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1991 to 1995. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor election law violation.

James Guy Tucker, Jr. - Democrat - Governor of Arkansas from 1992 to 1996. Resigned in July 1996 after conviction on federal fraud charges as part of the Whitewater investigation.

Walter Rayford Tucker - Democrat - Mayor of Compton, California from 1991 to 1992; U.S. Representative from California from 1993 to 1995. Sentenced to 27 months in prison for extortion and tax evasion.

William McCuen - Democrat - Secretary of State of Arkansas from 1985 to 1995. Admitted accepting kickbacks from two supporters he gave jobs, and not paying taxes on the money. Admitted to conspiring with a political consultant to split $53,560 embezzled from the state in a sham transaction. He was indicted on corruption charges. Pleaded guilty to felony counts tax evasion and accepting a kickback. Sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Walter Fauntroy - Democrat - Delegate to U.S. Congress from the District of Columbia from 1971 to 1991. Charged in federal court with making false statements on financial disclosure forms. Pleaded guilty to one felony count and sentenced to probation.

Carroll Hubbard, Jr. - Democrat - Kentucky State Senate from 1968 to 1975 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1975 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the Federal Elections Commission and to theft of government property; sentenced to three years in prison.

Joseph Kolter - Democrat - member of Pennsylvania State House of Representatives from 1969 to 1982 and U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1983 to 1993. Indicted by a Federal grand jury on five felony charges of embezzlement at the U.S. House post office. Pleaded guilty.

Webster Hubbell - Democrat - Chief Justice of Arkansas State Supreme Court in 1983. Pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges - sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Nicholas Mavroules - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1979 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud and accepting gratuities while in office.

Carl Christopher Perkins - Democrat - Kentucky State House of Representatives from 1981 to 1984 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1985 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud in connection with the House banking scandal. Perkins wrote overdrafts totaling about $300,000. Pleaded guilty to charges of filing false statements with the Federal Election Commission and false financial disclosure reports. Sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Richard Hanna - Democrat - U.S. Representative from California from 1963 to 1974. Received payments of about $200,000 from a Korean businessman in what became known as the "Koreagate" influence buying scandal. Pleaded guilty and sentenced to federal prison.

Angelo Errichetti - Democrat - New Jersey State Senator was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $40,000 for his involvement in Abscam.

Daniel Baugh Brewster - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Maryland. Indicted on charges of accepting illegal gratuity while in Senate.

Thomas Joseph Dodd - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Connecticut. Censured by the Senate for financial improprieties, having diverted $116,000 in campaign and testimonial funds to his own use

Edward Fretwell Prichard, Jr. - Democrat - Delegate to Democratic National Convention from Kentucky. Convicted of vote fraud in federal court in connection with ballot-box stuffing. Served five months in prison.

Jerry Springer - Democrat - Resigned from Cincinnati City Council in 1974 after admitting to paying a prostitute with a personal check, which was found in a police raid on a massage parlor.

Guy Hamilton Jones, Sr. - Democrat -Arkansas State Senate. Convicted on federal tax charges and expelled from the Arkansas Senate.

Daniel Flood - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1945 to 1947, 1949 to 1953 and 1955 to 1980. Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving payoffs and sentenced to probation.

Otto Kerner, Jr - Democrat - Governor of Illinois from 1961 to 1968. While serving as Governor, he and another official made a gain of over $300,000 in a stock deal. Convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury, and related charges. Sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000.

George Crockett, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan. Served four months in federal prison for contempt of court following his defense of a Communist leader on trial for advocating the overthrow of the government.

Cornelius Edward Gallagher - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1959 to 1873. Indicted in on federal charges of income tax evasion, conspiracy, and perjury

Mark B. Jimenez - Democrat fundraiser - sentenced to 27 months in prison on charges of tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit election financing offenses.

Bobby Lee Rush - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois. As a Black Panther, spent six months in prison on a weapons charge.

Bolley ''Bo'' Johnson - Democrat - Former Florida House Speaker - received a two-year term for tax evasion.

Roger L. Green - Democrat - Brooklyn Democrat Assemblyman. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for accepting travel reimbursement for trips he did not pay for and was sentenced to fines and probation.

Gloria Davis - Democrat - Bronx assemblywoman. Pleaded guilty to second-degree bribe-taking.

This is a log of a Rush Limbaugh show.

Interestingly, I believe it relates to what you have posted.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1531544/posts

Quote:

RUSH: Bill in Delray Beach, Florida. Glad you called, sir, welcome.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Listen, as you're you're recounting the corruption scandals of the past in Congress, you might want to remember the Keating Five, four of which were Democrats, and one was -- the only Republican was -- McCain -- and Jim Wright, the speaker of the House.

RUSH: Yeah, I got 'em all here. I got 'em all here. I've got the Keating Five. They say there was a Republican in that group, but I'm not so sure. Here's the list: Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, Don Riegle, John Glenn and John McCain. Who is the Republican in that group?

CALLER: (Laughing.) Uh, it might be five-for-five Democrats.

RUSH: The Keating scandal, the Keating Five, was also related to the Savings and Loan Scandal. This is 1980 and 1989. Remember the name Charles Keating? That's on the list. Let's just start here. These are the scandals, major scandals, 1975 through 1999.

• Lancegate: President Carter's OMB Director Bert Lance resignation amidst allegations of misuse of funds (1977)
• Tongsun Park "Koreagate" scandal involving alleged bribery of more than 100 members of Congress by South Korean government; charges were pressed only against congressmen Richard T. Hanna (convicted) and Otto E. Passman (not prosecuted because of illness); also implicated was South Korean President Park Chung Hee
• Betty Ford addictions (1978)
• Senator Herman Talmadge of Georgia ["Hummen, they called him. Hummen Talmadge of G'ogia.] punished after his ex-wife produced cash "gifts" he had hidden in an overcoat (1979); Talmadge later wrote, "I wish I'd burned that damn overcoat and charged everything on American Express." Talmadge the same year admitted to having spent five weeks in alcohol rehab; he was not re-elected to the Senate in 1980.

What this doesn't tell you is that Hummen would go back home to G'ogia and he'd go walkin' the streets and people would give him money! Constituents would give him money, and that's why it was in the overcoat. Hummen Talmadge. Hummen was around during the Watergate period. He wasn't on the committee or anything but he was constantly being interviewed about it.

• There was the Abscam scandal in (1980) ["One senator, Harrison A. Williams (D-NJ), and five members of the House: John Jenrette (D-SC), Richard Kelly (R-FL) -- later overturned -- Raymond Lederer (D-PA), Michael Myers (D-PA) and Frank Thompson (D-NJ) -- were convicted of bribery and conspiracy. John M. Murphy (D-NY), was convicted of a lesser charge. Most of the politicians resigned. Congressman Myers had to be expelled. Five other government officials were convicted, including the mayor of Camden, New Jersey, Angelo Errichetti. One politician targeted, but not indicted, was Congressman John Murtha (D-PA).]

• "Debategate": briefing book of President Jimmy Carter stolen and given to Ronald Reagan campaign before the 1980 presidential election debate in Cleveland, Ohio.
• October Surprise (1980).

Which, of course, the Democrats were still investigating in 1990.

• Anne Gorsuch Burford refusal to turn over EPA documents (1982)
• William Casey insider trading (1983)
• Iran-Contra affair (1985-1986)
• Savings and loan scandal and the Keating Five (1980-1989): Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, Don Riegle, John Glenn and John McCain.
• Senator John Tower's nomination as Defense Secretary derailed due to allegations of habitual and extreme alcohol abuse and improper ties to defense industry. (1987)
• Mario Biaggi convicted (1988) in Wedtech scandal of bribery, extortion, racketeering, filing a false tax return, mail fraud, and false financial disclosure; resigned from U.S. House before he could be expelled. He was a Democrat from New York.
• Speaker of the House "Fort Worthless" Jim Wright from Texas forced to resign after ethics committee investigation found dozens of violations of House rules, including alleged improper receipt of $145,000 in gifts by Wright's wife from a Fort Worth developer and large profits from "sale" of Wright's speeches.

Well, let me tell you about that. That was 1989. Fort Worthless Jim published a book of these speeches, and they had to get the book pretty thick to make it look Fort Worthless Jim was a substantive guy, and so they used a very large font, typeface, and some cases only one or two words per page. The books mostly were bought by organized labor in bulk, in boxes that were never opened. You had a tough time finding Fort Worthless Jim's book of speeches in the bookstore.

• Anthony Lee Coelho of California. That's Tony Coelho, who remains a major big shot organizing Democrat politics. He resigned from U.S. House for unethical finance practices including "junk bond" deal in 1989.

I remember I was watching Nightline that night. Barbara Walters was -- I saw Barbara Walters last night on Larry King Alive before the football started. You know, she was promoting her top ten most fascinating interviews. By the way, do you know who made her top ten most fascinating people list this year? Kanye West! Kanye West. Would somebody explain to me, of all the people in this country that might qualify as among the ten most fascinating, what in the world is Kanye West doing on the list? Now, I know I'm not an aficionado of rap music, but what am I missing here with Kanye West? Why is he among the fascinating? Is it that comment he made about Bush and Katrina? It has to be. It has to be. Anyway, she didn't look any older last night than when I watched her in 1989 on Nightline. A friend of mine said, "Well, it's all the Vaseline they put on the lens. It's a new version of soft focus." At any rate, I was watching her host Nightline. They were doing it on the resignation of Tony Coelho, and she was beside herself. "Can the government survive?" she said. It was just a congressman! He was a Democrat, powerful Democrat congressman from out in California. I met him a couple times.

• Alcee Hastings, federal district court judge impeached (1989) and convicted of soliciting a bribe. Nevertheless elected to U.S. House by the Democrats in Florida in 1992!
• Senator David Durenberger denounced by Senate for unethical financial transactions 1990.
• Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) scandal implicates former Defense Secretary and Washington insider Clark Clifford (1991).

BCCI that was a Jimmy Carter Deal During his term in office.

• House Bank scandal (1992)
• Mary Rose Oakar (1992) allegations of "ghost employees" on payroll.
• President George H.W. Bush's pardon of six Iran-Contra affair figures on his last day in office ( January 20, 1993), days before the perjury trial of Casper Weinberger was scheduled to begin.

Well, it was a scandal only because the Democrats thought, "You can't do that! We had Weinberger nailed!" Weinberger was indicted the day before the election in 1992: a pure political indictment. That ought to be mentioned. Remember the special counsel on that? Lawrence Walsh. Political indictment. The day before the election, the Friday before the election, he indicted Weinberger. Democrats tried it again right before the election of 2000, leaking that Bush had a DWI he had never talked about, remember that?

• Travelgate (1993)
• Zoe Baird's nomination as Attorney General and Kimba Wood's subsequent near-nomination were derailed by past employment of illegal aliens as nannies. (1993)

Both nominated by President Clinton.

• Walter Fauntroy, Delegate to Congress from the District of Columbia, guilty plea regarding lying on financial disclosure form (1995)
• Wes Cooley (1996)
• Walter R. Tucker III of California resigned before bribery conviction (1996)
• Secretary of Agriculture Michael Espy forced to resign from office despite ultimate acquittal on criminal corruption charges (1998)
• Bruce ba-da ba-da ba-da Babbitt, Interior Secretary, independent probe (1998-2000) of alleged lying to Congress concerning influence of money in 1995 American Indian tribe casino decision finds no criminally prosecutable perjury by Babbitt.
• Vice-President Al Gore (1998) improper fundraising and "no controlling legal authority" defense.

This is those nuns out in California they bilked, the Buddhist nuns. Then he went out and said "no controlling legal authority."

• Whitewater scandal (1994-2000)
• Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich financial improprieties
• Dan "Rosty" Rostenkowski post office scandal (1994)

That's not even half of it. When they got to Rostenkowski's house in Illinois they found a bunch of furniture from his congressional office!

• Teamstergate: Ron Carey's and Bill Clinton's 1996 campaigns for the Presidency of the union and the US, respectively, swapped Teamster's Union general treasury funds into Clinton's campaign for Clinton Campaign funds into Ron Carey's campaign warchest. The Teamster's political director was jailed. No Clinton officials were charged. Carey's re-election was invalidated James Hoffa, Jr was elected when the Teamster election was rerun.
• Henry Cisneros resigns as Housing Secretary and, after lengthy probe that began in 1995, pleads guilty (1999) to lying to the FBI about money he paid former mistress; later pardoned by President Clinton in 2001(Possibly reclassify or cross-reference to Sex scandal)
• Pardongate (1999, 2001)

That's the Marc Rich pardon. We're just up to the year 2000 now, folks, and this just a list of scandals -- and Democrats want to talk about this "culture of corruption" out there? Nine out of ten of these that I've mentioned here are Democrats, and loads of them in the Clinton administration. Let's go.

• Linda Chavez, nomination as Secretary of Labor derailed by past employment of illegal alien. (2001)
• Jim Traficant (D-OH) we all know.
• Robert Torricelli bribery scandal (2002)
• Trent Lott resigned as Senate majority leader amid racial controversy
Yellow cake forgery, false evidence presented in the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

• That's still an ongoing controversy. To call this a scandal? We haven't even yet got to the bottom of this. Following that's the Valerie Plame affair.

• "Halliburton Company: is listed as a scandal, here. (laughing)

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Tom DeLay, Bernard Kerik, Bush administration payment of columnists including Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus. The Downing Street memo is listed. Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, and so on and so forth. This all from Wikipedia as they list the scandal from his 1975 to 1999. What's that? The House Bank Scandal? No, I mentioned it. It's here. I went through it earlier. The House Bank Scandal and the House post office scandal are both mentioned here.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Other Democrat scandals? Let's not forget Massachusetts congressman Gary Studds and the little patty cake he was playing with those House pages. Remember that one? Remember that? How about Barney Frank, Stephen Gobie? Stephen Gobie, Barney's partner, running a... Well, a brothel-type thing ran in Barney's basement. Barney said he never knew it. Barney was also fixing parking tickets for the guy. Joe Biden. Joe Biden plagiarizing Neil Kinnock during a presidential primary that Biden quickly faded. The Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd waitress sandwich. This is a scandal that was repeated practically every night at La Brasserie in Washington, a restaurant that's now closed -- and I'm not making this up. It would either be Senator Kennedy on the bottom and Senator Dodd on the top and the waitress in the middle, or Dodd on the bottom, Kennedy on the top, and the waitress in the middle, hence the waitress sandwich. The governor of Kentucky, Paul Patton, was accused of pressuring his mistress, harassing her after she broke it off and then withdrawing Medicare money from her nursing home that she ran, remember that? If the Democrats want to play this culture of corruption game, let's just remind them there's a new media. Oh, Edwin Edwards of Louisiana! Gosh, we could probably take up the rest of the program today mentioning a bunch of Democrat scandals. By the way, Dave Durenberger is a Republican from Minnesota. I said he was a Democrat senator. What about New Jersey? The whole state's a culture of corruption there. New Jersey itself --which is, you know, Democrat-run state.

END TRANSCRIPT

Anyway, I am chosing not to fill up a post with more and more and yet more examples. Those who choose to google democrat scandals are free to do so.

I already know you will not agree and that you feel Bush is the devil incarnate, but I simply could not let such a bald faced statement stand.

host · 12-10-2005, 11:58 PM

Lebell, your response implies that you did not read, or if you did read, you did not consider the point in the first parts of my post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=53

You posted "bingo" earlier, as if it is obvious that we are currently experiencing a wave of "bi-partisan" scandal. It isn't obvious. We aren't.

If you want to go back five years, ten, fifty, or one hundred, for the purpose of comparing scandals, propose doing that yourself. I compared what the talking points in the media today are, with the reality of the current situation. Quote Rush, quote a long list from a site that is sending out a smokescreen of "damage control" in response to current and recent MSM reports. They hardly rise to counter what I pointed out was coming from a WaPo reporter who had set a comparsion criteria of elected officials, federal and in governor's mansions, who had been tainted by corruptionj scandals in the past year. The point that he confirmed was that the current reports of scandals are so skewed towards current and very recent republican office holders, that his editor had to depart from the comparison criteria of timeframe to add a fallen democrat whose scandal and resignation did not even take place in that time frame.

He admitted that a WaPo editor had inserted the out of timeframe democrat to balance the survey. Republican CT governor Rowland, who is currently in federal prison and resigned in the same timeframe as the democrat who was inserted "for balance", was not added to the survey.

Rush Limbaugh and you seem to have a strikingly similar agenda.....a spin that
we are currently in a period of bi-partisan scandal. I submit that this cannot be possible if the overwhelming majority of those recently indicted, convicted, or who have resigned, as well as those reported to be targets of criminal investigation, are of one party.

I solicited posts that counter the premise that current and recently identified scandal suspects and convicts are overwhelmingly republican, and you resorted to targeting me personally, and citing Rush's talking points about past scandals. I suspect that you resorted to responding that way because that was all you had to go with.

The American electorate has gotten as far down to the bottom of historical scandals as we are likely to get. The current ones need attention; if for no other reason, than to examine, via, as in the past, congressional ethics and other committee investigations where targets are subpoenaed and questioned under oath. Thus far, it is unprecedented that this process is not taking place. It is vital to find the depth and breadth of the dereliction of duty taking place, as the Cunningham guilty plea and to some extent, the Libby indictment, exemplify. How does a media that picks up and repeats Rush's talking points that highlight historic scandals, do anything but downplay and mislead us as to the seriousness of what prosecutors are investigating, and congress, the white house, and republican dominated state houses are not;
so far, at least.

I'm not talking about exaggeration by the media that would beat up on one party. I'm simply observing that the media is not calling it as it is unfolding in a contemporary setting......or do you, Lebell, think that it is fair to all of us that there are no ethics hearings taking place in congress, and no relevant committee investigations into activities like Cunningham's admission of taking $2.4 million in bribes to influence defense spending, or of Libby's and Rove's involvment in the deliberate outing of Plame?

Will we get closer to dealing with current scandals and getting a sense of who is at fault by printing Rush's talking points as news, or by printing the
survey linked early in my post that was accurate, but, in the view of a WaPo editor, needed an out of timeframe former democratice congressman named
"Ballance", added to the survey in an attempt to "balance" it.

Just like Rush's talking points, that WaPo editor's effort obscured the public's view to what is going on.....the scope of the scandals that justice must respond to...the ones that are relevant and where much is still unknown and can hurt the national security, finances, welfare, and integrity of the government.

Lebell, you went around or missed my first question, here's another for you:

How does....well....Bill Clinton wagged the dog in 1998, help us meet today's scandals head on.....identify and investigate them, exonerate or punish those accused, and fix the problems that are identified in the process?

alpha phi · 12-11-2005, 01:26 AM

Host:

Replicrat........Demicon
You are missing the point.
the European monarchy have
"kept it in the family",
since Alexander the great.
You may have forgotten that.
The Elite has not.
36 of the 43 presidents are related.
http://www.familyforest.com/Kerry_Bush_Cousins.html

In fact most of the elite is of the royal families
Politicians
Actors
CEO's
http://www.wargs.com/political/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in604163.shtml
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/08/294770.shtml
http://www.chickenmcnugget.com/pics/bushkerry.htm
http://www.illuminati-news.com/royal-trees.htm

Thought we were free of the criminal monarchs in 1776?
We almost did it.
The biggest difference is we have a new king
every 4-8 years, rather then a lifetime.

Is a criminal more or less of a criminal if he......
1. is represented by an elephant......
2. is represented by an ass.......

Rekna · 12-11-2005, 07:48 AM

Marv, you posted a lot of trash on Clinton but if we use the same stick the the conservitives on this board to measure (conviction not allegations or indictments) there is nothing on Clinton. So please point out where Clinton was convicted of wrong doing. Remember he was impeached by the house but not the senate. Please point out to me where Clinton was indicted? You can bitch all day long about Clinton giving evasive testimony but at least he was willing to testify under oath. It is easy not to have to give evasive testimony when you refuse to testify under oath.....

And lebell do you think a website called boycottliberalism.com might be a little biased? The scandals people are bringing up on the republican party are found on foxnews not killalltheevilconservatives.com.

ratbastid · 12-11-2005, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its all about that, you started it as a 'I hate republican's' thread, this is the natural progression.

Hey, you said it, not me.

The natural progression, after pointing out to Republicans that their party has egg on its face, is to be railroaded into a conversation about the ancient past.

I'm checking, but... yep, that sure seems to be the natural progression.

I've already addressed the "I hate republican's" (sic) thing. Any time you want to stop putting words in my mouth and engage in a substantive discussion of the issues would be just fine with me, Ustwo. Your endless stream of cheap shots does no honor to yourself or anyone else.

Ustwo · 12-11-2005, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Hey, you said it, not me.

The natural progression, after pointing out to Republicans that their party has egg on its face, is to be railroaded into a conversation about the ancient past.

I'm checking, but... yep, that sure seems to be the natural progression.

I've already addressed the "I hate republican's" (sic) thing. Any time you want to stop putting words in my mouth and engage in a substantive discussion of the issues would be just fine with me, Ustwo. Your endless stream of cheap shots does no honor to yourself or anyone else.

You addressed it but it doesn't change it now does it? Perhaps one needs to get off their high horse when they started the thread with the intentions of mucking in the stalls.

roachboy · 12-11-2005, 10:22 AM

yet another lesson in "personal responsbility" republican style.

rule number 1: whenever and wherever scandal erupts that injures your side, any and all types of dissociation are permitted.

correlate: it is preferred if the dissociation you choose to indulge dovetails with the talking points of that mighty conservative intellectual dynamo limbaugh (or another reactionary talking head take your pick--the characteristic feature of conservative politics is centrally co-ordinated talking points---this leaves the servility set with a number of talking heads to choose from--rifling through these options can be comfortably confused with thinking.)

so now your dissociation has a structure. indulge at will.

you might wonder about occaision.
well, here's a scenario in q and a form that outlines a rationale for dissimulation conservative style:

Q. what justifies dissociation?
A. justification can be found via any disengenuous reading of material critical of the right---so you have a far right administration that generates scandal atop scandal.clearly any discussion of such scandal is carried out by people who are opposed to conservative politics.
this oppostion cannot possibly have a rational basis.
so it follows that opposition=hatred.
so any and all critiques of bushworld, or of conservative politics in general, can be reduced to "you just hate republicans."
from here, content-free non-discussion can be caried out across a series of facile one-liners.

note: from an outside perspective, this line of reasoning can appear to be totally abject---from a conservative viewpoint, it is a simple mapping of servility from one space into another. because committment to right ideology is a matter of faith to begin with, argument occupies a secondary status. it can always be dispensed with.

indulge projection---claim the following: there is nothing specific about conservative scandal--everyone and everything is involved with scandal--once you make this move, time, space, logic--all are unnecessary---what matters is dissolving conservative-generated scandal into a generalized morass.
discussion becomes impossible.
in the breakdown of discussion, conservatives find solace.
by finding solace, they imagine victory.

when confronted with yet another sequence of facts that appear to cast conservatives in a bad light, deploy your sense of being-persecuted.

at all costs, refuse to accept any responsibility.
why?
because reality is often ugly.
it is best to run away.

Lebell · 12-11-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

And lebell do you think a website called boycottliberalism.com might be a little biased? The scandals people are bringing up on the republican party are found on foxnews not killalltheevilconservatives.com.

Of course they are biased. But that doesn't mean they made up the scandals. Those are real.

Host, I think that the point was made to those who want to hear. I understand that the majority of current scandals are related to the party in power, but my point was and is that this is nothing new.

Is that reason not to investigate and prosecute? No. Nor do I think it is reason for this demonizing of Republicans.

And on a last note, this "agenda" that you have now twice accused me of having regarding the Republicans belongs in Paranoia, not here.

shakran · 12-11-2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I kept promising myself I wasn't going to do this, but I guess the part about not caring if he was a serial killer (but Bush LIED!) put me over the edge. That, and two people saying Clinton was "one of the best presidents in [their] lifetime."

You just don't get this do you? Actually, I don't believe that. I think you DO get this and are pretending to be obtuse so that you can continue to rail on Clinton in a sad attempt to distract us from the current problems.

I really don't care what Clinton did. Why? Because Clinton isn't in office any more. I'm getting awfully tired of you guys using Clinton to excuse everything Bush has done and is doing. It doesn't matter what Clinton did as far as whether or not it excuses what Bush is doing. Nothing Clinton could possibly have done gives Bush a free pass to do whatever wrongs he wants to do. The sooner the liberals get that through their heads the better. Yes, I did say liberals. The "conservatives" (btw, if you side with bush, you're not a conservative) already know that - they're just trying to bullshit the liberals to distract from the inadequacies of their president.

Quote:

His "wife" trying to nationalize 17% of the nation's private economy through her heavy-handed plan for socialized medicine.

first I'm not sure why you put wife in quotes. Are you suggesting that marriages that aren't between two conservatives are morally wrong too?

And second, you might want to stop there. You're displaying a shocking lack of knowledge about the healthcare system. Or are you suggesting that it's a much better system to have millions without insurance, millions more with inadequate coverage, and the rest of us largely dependant on HMO's who say things like cancer treatments are medically unnecessary, while at the same time companies across the country are struggling to meet mounting benefits costs?

Quote:

Major Democratic campaign contributors sold and transfered vital American nuclear, missile, and satellite technology to avowed enemies of freedom, and of the United States. [This was the WORST offense, in my opinion, and I can't think of another politician particularly a president, who would have even CONSIDERED such a thing.]

Yeah, certainly no other president would have done that. Not even Reagan when he sold arms to Iran. Oh. . .wait. . . .

And that's campaign CONTRIBUTORS. Saying that's Clinton's fault is rather like saying I'm guilty of murder because I met a murderer once. Let's get just a touch realistic in our arguments, shall we?

Quote:

Five members of Clinton's Cabinet came under criminal investigation.

This from the same group of people that say just being investigated doesn't mean anything and we should ignore it. Oh, now I get it. That's when a REPUBLICAN is investigated. When anyone ELSE gets investigated, they deserve the chair. I love hypocracy, don't you?

Quote:

Thirty-three connected to the Clinton administration were convicted of crimes.

A statistic from a rather pathetic list. This list includes his brother Roger (drug trafficking) - so now Clinton is responsible for the crimes of his family? Neat! Let's start talking about Jenna and Laura then shall we? And let's dig up everyone Bush has ever had any slight contact with (or even reach further than that if we want to stay in the spirit of your list) and see who gets more convictions.

Quote:

Monica.

Yeah, the ultimate stupidity. That the nation got distracted by a blowjob when we really needed to be worried about bin Laden. Sure, he shouldn't have done it. And we shouldn't have made such a big damn deal about it either.

Quote:

Forty-five witnesses in criminal investigations or critics of the Clinton administration were subjected to IRS audits.

And how many were audited who were not critical of the Clinton administration? I'll give you a hint. It's a hell of a lot more than 45, which makes your point meaningless.

Quote:

Five women who were said to have been associated with Bill Clinton complain publicly of physical threats having been made against them.

Who were SAID? were SAID to have been associated with him? What the hell is this, 3rd grade gossip? Let's get some real evidence shall we?

Quote:

Hillary Clinton issued a 42 paragraph sworn statement to a House investigating committee investigating Clinton wrongdoings, and in those 42 paragraphs, she used the phrase "I don't recall" or its equivalent no less than 50 times. Even Randy Cunningham didn't feed us THAT crap.

Nope. But as long as we're dredging up past presidents, Reagan did. A lot more than 50 times too. And that was before the alzheimers had really gotten hold so he didn't have that excuse.

Quote:

Bill Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in portions of his testimony about Paula Jones 271 times.

What is your point? That has nothing to do with what is happening NOW. NOW is important. Clinton screwing some chick over a decade ago is NOT important.

I'm cutting a bunch of the crap you wrote because it's just not worth replying to, but this one I HAD to address.

Quote:

American servicemen were scattered to nearly 100 foreign nations to serve as glorified cops

What planet are you on? Have you noticed we're at war in Iraq, with over 2000 soldiers dead, countless Iraqi civilians dead, many more from each side permanently maimed, and NOTHING to show for it as far as enhanced national security? Pot, meet kettle.

Quote:

Aspirin factories in foreign countries were bombed to divert attention from presidential scandals.

And pharmaceutical factories in Iraq were used, along with a semi trailer, to "prove" the existance of nonexistant WMDs to divert attention from the fact that Bush is a lying warmonger who was gonna invade Iraq no matter what.

Quote:

Bodies of dead American servicemen were dragged through the streets

And they shouldn't have been because we should never have been there. No one's saying Clinton is a god. But just because Clinton put us where we didn't belong doesn't mean Bush gets to without criticism.

Quote:

of half assed inconsequential foreign dog-patch nations by mobs of people who aren't fit to utter the phrase, "would you like french fries with that."

If that phrase doesn't catapult a poster to the rank of ethnocentric elitist jerk, I don't know what does. And it shows you to be a hypocrite too. On the one hand you say we shouldn't have been there invading a foreign country. On the other you think those people are scum because they fought back. That's ridiculous. If your country was invaded you wouldn't be scum for fighting back either.

Now, let's start getting grounded in reality. This idea that "well he did it so I should be able to do it" is complete and total horseshit, and anyone older than 8 who tries to use it should be ashamed of themselves. The crimes of another does not excuse the crimes of everyone else.

Instead of responding to accusations of Bush's wrongdoing with "well HE DID IT TOOOO!" let's try and elevate our arguments beyond preadolescence and try actually responding to the facts in the accusations.

host · 12-11-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Of course they are biased. But that doesn't mean they made up the scandals. Those are real.

Host, I think that the point was made to those who want to hear. I understand that the majority of current scandals are related to the party in power, but my point was and is that this is nothing new.

Is that reason not to investigate and prosecute? No. Nor do I think it is reason for this demonizing of Republicans.

And on a last note, this "agenda" that you have now twice accused me of having regarding the Republicans belongs in Paranoia, not here.

Lebell, I think that our exchanges on this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=96647&page=1

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=96647&page=2

......helps to illuminate the gulf that seperates us.
That thread I linked above was sidetracked by your posts that advocated Victoria Toensing and her husband, Jospeph DiGenova as reliable sources on the subject of whether any law was broken in the "outing" of Valerie Plame.

Toensing and DiGenova, both former federal prosecutors of conservative political sympathies, if this <a href="http://www.google.com/search?svnum=10&as_scoring=r&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=fitzgerald+DiGenova+OR+toensing&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web">link</a> is any indication, have polluted the internet with their unceasing propagandist self-promotion, masked as authoritative comment. It might even seem convincing as a "public service" message, if not for it's frequency and repetitiveness.

Does it never occur to you, Lebell, to inventory all of your politcial opinions to assess how they have been influenced by other "Toensing/DiGenova style,
talking point "Ops"? Do you think that your taking notice and then acting to
distribute Toensing's "material, was a one-time incident in your continuous processing and filtering of current events and political information?

Another example that comes to mind were our discussions of David Horowitz.
When you post something on here as a citation, you end up "owning" it.
How much slack did you cut for me, when I erroneously posted a fictional article from the whitehouse.org website. I apologized for my mistake as quickly as I could, in the sincerest way that I could convey via this medium.
Did you let it go at that, or did you remind everyone about my whitehouse.org mistake, again, later? (To your credit, you soon deleted the post that contained that criticism, but you did not apologize for it, or for the Toensing referrals that you've made on other threads.

I don't "hate Bush", and I don't "hate" conservatives or republicans. I attended a Southern Baptist sunday service this a.m. because it pleases my wife when I accompany her. I politely listened to a Bush supporter in our congregation, when we shared a noon meal after the service, as he stated that Bush has done everything right, except for secruing the borders and is now on the right track, there, too! I kept silent and smiled as he told us that the military acadmey where his son attends is rife with the influence of "atheist democrats". (All I could think of is the conservative christian takeover of the Air Force academy.) He went so far as to declare that christians were outnumbered and "put upon", here in America.

What I "hate" Lebell, is hypocrisy, and the confident assertions of those who
mistake popaganda and misinformation, for "fair and balanced" reporting.

We are living on the other side of the '94 "Contract" that republicans used to take over the first branch of congress, on their way to a coup that now includes all three. They promised a higher standard, an ethical, moral, accountable government. Term limits..... How do any of those "promises" square with what has actually happened?

Why are you not more outraged than I am? You drank their kool-ade, and you apparently still have some appetite for more of it. On the ride home earlier, I asked my wife what she thought that southern baptists, since theri break from other American baptists, in 1845, have been right about? They believed that "the bible says", it is not a sin for one race to enslave another. Segregation was not a sin. Relegating women to a subservient role, of "submitting" to their husband, and demonizing homosexuals, is all in a day's work for these folks.

I'll put the question to you , Lebell, what have you been right about as far as the war in Iraq, and about Bush's and his congress's other policies and actions. Was the new $95 billion tax cut passed by the house last week, as the debt grows, Iraq festers, N.O. rots, Bush rants on endlessly about "staying the course", and Hastert pushes back the start of the "peoples' business" in the next congress by two weeks, next month, in an effort to accomodate the ambitions of one disgraced man, Delay, enough, even for you, to say enough is enough?

Evidently not....judging from your continued defense and obfuscation of the indefensible....the republican breach of contract with America.

Lebell · 12-11-2005, 01:06 PM

Host, I will do something I will likely never do again: take the time to respond point for point to your posts and questions.

Quote:

Lebell, I think that our exchanges on this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showth...?t=96647&page=1

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showth...?t=96647&page=2

......helps to illuminate the gulf that seperates us.

I agree that this is one post that illuminates the gulf, but its relevance eludes me.

Quote:

That thread I linked above was sidetracked by your posts that advocated Victoria Toensing and her husband, Jospeph DiGenova as reliable sources on the subject of whether any law was broken in the "outing" of Valerie Plame.

Toensing and DiGenova, both former federal prosecutors of conservative political sympathies, if this link is any indication, have polluted the internet with their unceasing propagandist self-promotion, masked as authoritative comment. It might even seem convincing as a "public service" message, if not for it's frequency and repetitiveness.

Here is one of the reasons I have stopped responding. “That thread I linked was sidetracked by your posts”.

I find your claim that I “sidetracked” the thread to be outrageous. I posted something that directly related to the case, but because it did not follow the original poster’s assumption that a crime was committed, you call it “sidetrack(ing)”. I am very aware of the power of words and I strongly suspect you are doing exactly what you bemoan, i.e., putting your own spin on stories and words for the benefit of your own arguments. Do I blame you? No. We all do it. But when I call into question the basic assumption, you act hurt and attacked, or you call it “sidetracking” or call sources into question, blah blah blah.

The fact is that what I posted was VERY relevant, you just didn’t like it. It called into question the basic assumption of that a crime was committed, which contrary to what you may think, I still haven’t seen you post strong evidence that it has, nor that my basic article was faulty. All you did post was that the writers were conservative and somewhat attention whorish. If it helps, I will concede that point. But IMO, no one ever did adequately disprove the points they raised. And last time I checked, being an attention whore was not a crime.

Quote:

Does it never occur to you, Lebell, to inventory all of your politcial opinions to assess how they have been influenced by other "Toensing/DiGenova style,
talking point "Ops"? Do you think that your taking notice and then acting to
distribute Toensing's "material, was a one-time incident in your continuous processing and filtering of current events and political information?

Your assumptions about me and others amaze me at times. Do you wonder that I find it insulting that a) because I don’t agree with your voluminous postings that I don’t’ “inventory” my political opinions or that b) you are any less influenced by the venom they post at moveon.org?

Again, I think the truth is that you are amazed that after all the “evidence” you produce, all from “msm”, that not everyone is on your bandwagon. That we are not, can only be ascribed to some mental deficiency, “sheeple” tendencies, or propaganda brain washing. The other possibility, that the truth is probably somewhere in between and that you yourself may be suffering from a case of leftist propaganda doesn’t even occur to you.

Again, if it helps, I’ll concede that these days I tend to give more weight to conservative talking points than liberal ones. Can you admit the opposite?

Quote:

Another example that comes to mind were our discussions of David Horowitz.
When you post something on here as a citation, you end up "owning" it.
How much slack did you cut for me, when I erroneously posted a fictional article from the whitehouse.org website. I apologized for my mistake as quickly as I could, in the sincerest way that I could convey via this medium.
Did you let it go at that, or did you remind everyone about my whitehouse.org mistake, again, later? (To your credit, you soon deleted the post that contained that criticism, but you did not apologize for it, or for the Toensing referrals that you've made on other threads.

You’re right in saying that I brought up your ersatz article, but if you also recall, it was as an example of what I consider to be a history of hit and miss sources you use in bolstering your claims. I have spent time in the past going through your posts and hunting down your sources and exposing their bias (which ironically, you are trying to hammer me on with Plame), but your only response was to pile on more. You also have had (less lately) a nagging tendency to take blogs and op-eds as Gospel. To me, you have shown that you do not really care about “truth” so much as being some corner doomsday crier and as such, can be safely ignored.

This is the danger, because some of what you say is very important, but unfortunately, the messenger is turning off the ears of the “sheeple” with the apparent and I mean apparent unreasoning hatred of the Republicans.

As to the “Toensing referrals”, I have nothing to apologize for. I cannot even believe you are equating them with a bogus website article you posted in your rush to pile on “irrefutable” proof of wrongdoing.

Quote:

I don't "hate Bush", and I don't "hate" conservatives or republicans. I attended a Southern Baptist sunday service this a.m. because it pleases my wife when I accompany her. I politely listened to a Bush supporter in our congregation, when we shared a noon meal after the service, as he stated that Bush has done everything right, except for secruing the borders and is now on the right track, there, too! I kept silent and smiled as he told us that the military acadmey where his son attends is rife with the influence of "atheist democrats". (All I could think of is the conservative christian takeover of the Air Force academy.) He went so far as to declare that christians were outnumbered and "put upon", here in America.

Another point of irritation with me. WTF do the Southern Baptists have to do with the Republicans or our conversation? I personally think it is another way you spin your web arguments, as if somehow mentioning their history of supporting slavery will install some repugnance in the reader which you can then attach to the current question at hand. You know what? They have no relevance to the conversation and again, I think you are practicing the same spin you decry.

Quote:

What I "hate" Lebell, is hypocrisy, and the confident assertions of those who
mistake popaganda and misinformation, for "fair and balanced" reporting.

Finally something we agree on. Of course, I don’t find your reporting or stance any more “fair and balanced” than that which you decry.

You are a one note Johnny, and you need to realize it.

Quote:

We are living on the other side of the '94 "Contract" that republicans used to take over the first branch of congress, on their way to a coup that now includes all three. They promised a higher standard, an ethical, moral, accountable government. Term limits..... How do any of those "promises" square with what has actually happened?

Finally, something we can talk about. Of course, this goes back to previous points; the party in power is no different than any other party that has been in power. All the “outrage” you have shown, and all the articles that you have posted, has been seen before, as has the corruption. Yet somehow we manage to chug along. You still haven’t ever shown me anything that makes me worry about the direction of our country. Oh, I worry about things like the next person, and I wonder how they will work out, but I am actually pretty optimistic. And the reason is, because I study history and I see that these times are no diffent from any other times, that is, that we are plagued by those who would take power and abuse it.

Quote:

Why are you not more outraged than I am? You drank their kool-ade, and you apparently still have some appetite for more of it. On the ride home earlier, I asked my wife what she thought that southern baptists, since theri break from other American baptists, in 1845, have been right about? They believed that "the bible says", it is not a sin for one race to enslave another. Segregation was not a sin. Relegating women to a subservient role, of "submitting" to their husband, and demonizing homosexuals, is all in a day's work for these folks.

The cute “Jim Jones” reference aside, another poor assumption on your part, not to mention the “spin” with the Southern Baptists.

Let’s settle this once and for all.

1) I am not a Democrat, yet I voted for Clinton.
2) I am not a Republican, yet I voted for Bush.
3) I am more of an Independent with a libertarian bent.
4) I do not support slavery or the Southern Baptists. Quit mentioning them.
5) I do not support everything the Republicans do, nor do I decry everything the Democrats do. To use party as the demarcation instead of studying the issues intelligently to make a decision is the height of foolishness.

Quote:

I'll put the question to you , Lebell, what have you been right about as far as the war in Iraq, and about Bush's and his congress's other policies and actions. Was the new $95 billion tax cut passed by the house last week, as the debt grows, Iraq festers, N.O. rots, Bush rants on endlessly about "staying the course", and Hastert pushes back the start of the "peoples' business" in the next congress by two weeks, next month, in an effort to accomodate the ambitions of one disgraced man, Delay, enough, even for you, to say enough is enough?

Again, it’s an annoying thing to see you throw several things together that have no connection and say, “See, see?? How can you support this???” But I’m willing to untangle them this once.

1) War in Iraq.

My God, yet again, we talk about this. Here is my position, which you can quote or link as much as you like. The war was right because a) Saddam was an evil megalomaniac mass murder who b) showed no hesitation to start wars in the region and c) had a distinct liking of WMD’s. He also d) repeatedly ignored UN sanctions and e) shot at coalition planes, that in itself an act of war. Need me to admit that we didn’t find any? Ok. Can you admit that the UN report said that he had several “dual purpose” facilities that. Need me to admit that Bush “lied”? No, sorry. I agree that it’s possible, but I also see that it was probably bad data. Need me to admit that Bush “sold us” the war? Sure. That’s what all leaders do. (queue Hitler quotes). But yes, I support the general idea of our going to war in Iraq.

2) $95 billion tax bill.

Sorry, not read up on it.

3) Debt growing.

No, I don’t like this. I am actually kind of pissed about it. I did like the fact that Clinton balanced the budget, but I didn’t like the fact that he gutted the military to do it. Is that enough rage?

4) Iraq festers.

Sorry, but I actually think we’re doing a damn good job. Amazed? Knowing the history of the region, and knowing the history of warfare, I think we can pull this one off…IF we don’t let people like you convince us to cut and run, leaving the job half done and leaving every crack pot insurgency group to fight over the crumbs.

5) N.O. rots

More of your spin…as if Bush is responsible for N.O. Oh sure, he could have set up FEMA better, but do we really need to bash this dead horse again? Face it, I disagree with your basic premise that Bush shoulders the majority of responsibility for the NO response. Show me how you’ve talked about the responsibility of the LA legislature, or even NO’s mayor, or how the levees were badly designed and then we can talk about Bush’s share of blame.

Quote:

Evidently not....judging from your continued defense and obfuscation of the indefensible....the republican breach of contract with America.

grrr grrr and grrr again.

I will state one last time that I think it is [b]you[b] that obfuscate the issues, that of how to get viable third party candidates elected, that of how to eliminate government waste and pork barrel spending, that of accountability for all politicians regardless of party, with your monotonous attack on the Republicans.

I never bought into the “contract with America” (again, keep for future linkage), but neither am I buying into what you are trying to sell.

Finally, I have wasted approximately an hour of my day responding to you, whom I do not see any chance of changing your mind and opinion. I did so because I am tired of your constant misrepresentation of my views. Was it worth it? I doubt it. Again, I have no doubt that you are retired or on disability, which would allow you the several hours a day it must take you to research, read, assemble, and post your material. I also don't doubt that few of our other members do not have this time, so I am putting on my mod hat when I say this: it is not your place to decry the discussion, nor to try to direct it the direction you would like. All our members are free to post in the forums so long as they follow forum rules. Also, all of our mods are people as well. That means that they have their personal predjuces, and feelings and sometimes they can get carried away. I am painfully aware that I am not exempt. But I am also mighty damn proud of our crew of volunteers for the way they try to evenly apply the rules for a usually thankless task.

host · 12-11-2005, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Host, I will do something I will likely never do again: take the time to respond point for point to your posts and questions.

I agree that this is one post that illuminates the gulf, but its relevance eludes me.

Here is one of the reasons I have stopped responding. “That thread I linked was sidetracked by your posts”.

I find your claim that I “sidetracked” the thread to be outrageous. I posted something that directly related to the case, but because it did not follow the original poster’s assumption that a crime was committed, you call it “sidetrack(ing)”. I am very aware of the power of words and I strongly suspect you are doing exactly what you bemoan, i.e., putting your own spin on stories and words for the benefit of your own arguments. Do I blame you? No. We all do it. But when I call into question the basic assumption, you act hurt and attacked, or you call it “sidetracking” or call sources into question, blah blah blah.

The fact is that what I posted was VERY relevant, you just didn’t like it. It called into question the basic assumption of that a crime was committed, which contrary to what you may think, I still haven’t seen you post strong evidence that it has, nor that my basic article was faulty. All you did post was that the writers were conservative and somewhat attention whorish. If it helps, I will concede that point. But IMO, no one ever did adequately disprove the points they raised. And last time I checked, being an attention whore was not a crime.

Your assumptions about me and others amaze me at times. Do you wonder that I find it insulting that a) because I don’t agree with your voluminous postings that I don’t’ “inventory” my political opinions or that b) you are any less influenced by the venom they post at moveon.org?

Again, I think the truth is that you are amazed that after all the “evidence” you produce, all from “msm”, that not everyone is on your bandwagon. That we are not, can only be ascribed to some mental deficiency, “sheeple” tendencies, or propaganda brain washing. The other possibility, that the truth is probably somewhere in between and that you yourself may be suffering from a case of leftist propaganda doesn’t even occur to you.

Again, if it helps, I’ll concede that these days I tend to give more weight to conservative talking points than liberal ones. Can you admit the opposite?

You’re right in saying that I brought up your ersatz article, but if you also recall, it was as an example of what I consider to be a history of hit and miss sources you use in bolstering your claims. I have spent time in the past going through your posts and hunting down your sources and exposing their bias (which ironically, you are trying to hammer me on with Plame), but your only response was to pile on more. You also have had (less lately) a nagging tendency to take blogs and op-eds as Gospel. To me, you have shown that you do not really care about “truth” so much as being some corner doomsday crier and as such, can be safely ignored.

This is the danger, because some of what you say is very important, but unfortunately, the messenger is turning off the ears of the “sheeple” with the apparent and I mean apparent unreasoning hatred of the Republicans.

As to the “Toensing referrals”, I have nothing to apologize for. I cannot even believe you are equating them with a bogus website article you posted in your rush to pile on “irrefutable” proof of wrongdoing.

Another point of irritation with me. WTF do the Southern Baptists have to do with the Republicans or our conversation? I personally think it is another way you spin your web arguments, as if somehow mentioning their history of supporting slavery will install some repugnance in the reader which you can then attach to the current question at hand. You know what? They have no relevance to the conversation and again, I think you are practicing the same spin you decry.

Finally something we agree on. Of course, I don’t find your reporting or stance any more “fair and balanced” than that which you decry.

You are a one note Johnny, and you need to realize it.

Finally, something we can talk about. Of course, this goes back to previous points; the party in power is no different than any other party that has been in power. All the “outrage” you have shown, and all the articles that you have posted, has been seen before, as has the corruption. Yet somehow we manage to chug along. You still haven’t ever shown me anything that makes me worry about the direction of our country. Oh, I worry about things like the next person, and I wonder how they will work out, but I am actually pretty optimistic. And the reason is, because I study history and I see that these times are no diffent from any other times, that is, that we are plagued by those who would take power and abuse it.

The cute “Jim Jones” reference aside, another poor assumption on your part, not to mention the “spin” with the Southern Baptists.

Let’s settle this once and for all.

1) I am not a Democrat, yet I voted for Clinton.
2) I am not a Republican, yet I voted for Bush.
3) I am more of an Independent with a libertarian bent.
4) I do not support slavery or the Southern Baptists. Quit mentioning them.
5) I do not support everything the Republicans do, nor do I decry everything the Democrats do. To use party as the demarcation instead of studying the issues intelligently to make a decision is the height of foolishness.

Again, it’s an annoying thing to see you throw several things together that have no connection and say, “See, see?? How can you support this???” But I’m willing to untangle them this once.

1) War in Iraq.

My God, yet again, we talk about this. Here is my position, which you can quote or link as much as you like. The war was right because a) Saddam was an evil megalomaniac mass murder who b) showed no hesitation to start wars in the region and c) had a distinct liking of WMD’s. He also d) repeatedly ignored UN sanctions and e) shot at coalition planes, that in itself an act of war. Need me to admit that we didn’t find any? Ok. Can you admit that the UN report said that he had several “dual purpose” facilities that. Need me to admit that Bush “lied”? No, sorry. I agree that it’s possible, but I also see that it was probably bad data. Need me to admit that Bush “sold us” the war? Sure. That’s what all leaders do. (queue Hitler quotes). But yes, I support the general idea of our going to war in Iraq.

2) $95 billion tax bill.

Sorry, not read up on it.

3) Debt growing.

No, I don’t like this. I am actually kind of pissed about it. I did like the fact that Clinton balanced the budget, but I didn’t like the fact that he gutted the military to do it. Is that enough rage?

4) Iraq festers.

Sorry, but I actually think we’re doing a damn good job. Amazed? Knowing the history of the region, and knowing the history of warfare, I think we can pull this one off…IF we don’t let people like you convince us to cut and run, leaving the job half done and leaving every crack pot insurgency group to fight over the crumbs.

5) N.O. rots

More of your spin…as if Bush is responsible for N.O. Oh sure, he could have set up FEMA better, but do we really need to bash this dead horse again? Face it, I disagree with your basic premise that Bush shoulders the majority of responsibility for the NO response. Show me how you’ve talked about the responsibility of the LA legislature, or even NO’s mayor, or how the levees were badly designed and then we can talk about Bush’s share of blame.

grrr grrr and grrr again.

I will state one last time that I think it is [b]you[b] that obfuscate the issues, that of how to get viable third party candidates elected, that of how to eliminate government waste and pork barrel spending, that of accountability for all politicians regardless of party, with your monotonous attack on the Republicans.

I never bought into the “contract with America” (again, keep for future linkage), but neither am I buying into what you are trying to sell.

Finally, I have wasted approximately an hour of my day responding to you, whom I do not see any chance of changing your mind and opinion. I did so because I am tired of your constant misrepresentation of my views. Was it worth it? I doubt it. Again, I have no doubt that you are retired or on disability, which would allow you the several hours a day it must take you to research, read, assemble, and post your material. I also don't doubt that few of our other members do not have this time, so I am putting on my mod hat when I say this: it is not your place to decry the discussion, nor to try to direct it the direction you would like. All our members are free to post in the forums so long as they follow forum rules. Also, all of our mods are people as well. That means that they have their personal predjuces, and feelings and sometimes they can get carried away. I am painfully aware that I am not exempt. But I am also mighty damn proud of our crew of volunteers for the way they try to evenly apply the rules for a usually thankless task.

A couple of things to begin responding to your points:

In my last post, I don't think that I directed any comments towards you that took into account that you are a mod. I admire you for your efforts at moderating this forum. Your final comments in your last post, have a restricitive effect on my response now , though, because you added the authority of your "mod hat", to your post. I am not convinced that your intent is to accomplish more than to "moderate" the underlying tone of my
anticipated comment, but it has a muzzling influence on what I'm going to write.

I do not think that my comments created a provocation on the scale of your reaction. I was not attempting to associate you or your comments with Southern Baptists. I was trying to persuade you that I am not the "rabid", irrational, "Bush hating" menace, that you accused me of being. I tried to show you that I live in a world where I compromise, I am polite, and I hold my tongue much of the time. I wanted you to try to understand that I see the effects of the influences of the religious right's politcal manipulation on the people in my community ,and the effect of the disinformation bombardment that comes from Rush, Hannity, Dobson, Rove, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html">Frank Luntz</a>, Toensing, and "my job is to catapult the propaganda", Bush, et al. on the people who are in my life, wife....two stepsons...and how similar the influence of it shapes their opinions, as I see it doing to your opinions and to those of other conservatives who post here.

Please suggest a better way, if you can propose one, than the way I describe
this propagandist effect on people, especially on some fundamentalist christians and political conservatives, as I see taking places.

The "kool-ade" reference was intended to be generic, if I had given it's use more thought, maybe I would have omitted it. My use of that term came from influences on my vocabualry that pre-dated Jim Jones........

Quote:

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Kossary
Kool-Aid, Drinking the
Originally from the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test by Tom Wolfe, referring to Kool-Aid at parties being spiked with LSD, so that one had to drink the Kool-Aid to be "tuned in". Also connected in people's minds to Jim Jones' followers' use of Flavor-Aid containing cyanide to kill themselves. Now used in political circles to refer to people who have bought into a candidacy or a cause wholeheartedly. (pyrrho, ogre)

I'll respond point by point to you when I have more time. Consider that I post so much reference information because, in this upside down, "new world", I test and refine what I believe is the most accurate information available, in realtime, as I put a post here together. You only see what passes my BS "meter" and various "smell tests" that I put my hunches through before they appear here. You don't see (and I know that you have no interest in seeing)
what I originally suspect is accurate, vs. what I end up standing behind in my post content. The constant government, RNC, and yes....news media and DNC "spin" and misinformation, are usually a good first indication that the opposite of what they transmit is probably true.

This is a hobby that is becoming a second full-time job, with loss of sleep as
a consequence. I post a lot because I am unsure of what I start out believing, and my process only makes me confident of one thing. I end up reaching more accurately predictive outcomes of events, in hingsight, and I gain an incentive to be more skeptical, and to work even harder.

I know how this looks, but I believe it, so I'll write it:
It is an unending source of wonder, amusement, and frustration to me, that folks here who have expended the greatest effort to find and share independent sources of information, closest to their unfiltered origins, seem to
be ostracized because they post ideas and citations that do not fit with the belief systems of the majority here. roachboy is probably the most politcally educated participant here, and too many folks deride or dismiss what he posts. Don't you wonder how he got the way he is? How can it be so easy to dismiiss what he has to say? I do not presume to be in roachboy's class of aptitude or ability, but explain to me how it follows that you admit that I sepnd too much time at this, post too many citations to back what I have to say, largely confining those citations to "newspapers of record" ,and first hand reports from usually reliable sources, yet so little of the content of my posts ends up seeming to you to be reliable or accurate?

hrandani · 12-11-2005, 04:09 PM

I may be a jackass, but I find your comments hilarious Lebelle.

Not going to say anything further because of the mod - stick.

ratbastid · 12-11-2005, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrandani

I may be a jackass, but I find your comments hilarious Lebelle.

Not going to say anything further because of the mod - stick.

Oh, let's not go there.

Mods may participate in discussions with others--may disagree with them right out loud from time to time. But they're pros through and through. Major moderation actions (punishments, bans, etc) don't happen unilaterally just because you pissed off a particular moderator with your response to his political views. Those actions are thorougly discussed before they're taken.

That's not to say you may not be a jackass. If you're a jackass--and you act like a jackass--you'll get what's coming to you.

alpha phi · 12-11-2005, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Snip five billion words that amount to

and

First off
I agree with much of what you have to say.

Sadly however, you sound like those bush supporters
that call CSPAN Durring a show
about a zoo, just to slam liberals.

are you sure you are not a republican
in disguise? sent here to make liberals look foolish?

After reading your one sided,
copy and paste,
5 mile long post,
I think:
"Wull Clinn-ton did stuf too"
sounds intelligent in compairison.

ratbastid · 12-11-2005, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You addressed it but it doesn't change it now does it? Perhaps one needs to get off their high horse when they started the thread with the intentions of mucking in the stalls.

I note once again that you've supplied exactly zero response to the content of my post.

shakran · 12-11-2005, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrandani

I may be a jackass, but I find your comments hilarious Lebelle.

Not going to say anything further because of the mod - stick.

I'm with ratbastid on this one. That's pretty chickenshit of you to attack Lebelle's comments and then excuse the fact that you have no justification to back your attack up by hiding behind the "I'm afraid of the Big Bad Mod" argument. Pretty transparent if you ask me.

And Rat, Ustwo's not going to respond to the content of your post because to do so would require him to either a) lie so obviously that everyone here would catch it or b) admit he's wrong. He's not going to do either.

Ustwo · 12-11-2005, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I note once again that you've supplied exactly zero response to the content of my post.

I've already said my piece in this thread Rasti, its now gone on some wonderful tangents, if you had some other post in here I'm suppose to respond to, I'm afraid it was lost in a long use of the middle scroll button on some of these fine posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

And Rat, Ustwo's not going to respond to the content of your post because to do so would require him to either a) lie so obviously that everyone here would catch it or b) admit he's wrong. He's not going to do either.

shakran go read the general board, the news caster thread, it pretty much sums up how I view your posting.

Marvelous Marv · 12-12-2005, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

That's nice. One thing though: THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT THAT.

You've now done precisely what you were just accused of: rather than dealing with the issues in front of you, you've launched six-plus years back in time to drag the last president through the mud. It's a total non-sequitur, but it neatly changes the focus of the discussion.

We're not TALKING about Clinton. He's on the lecture circuit now. Who the hell cares? We're talking about CURRENT malfeasance. The current round of felons happens to largely be Republican. But you're not interested in talking about THAT, are you?

I'm now quite convinced you have no defense for your sullied golden boys. The only thing you can do is say, "Yeah, well..... Clinton!"

There's an old joke about your apparent political philosophy:

A worker received $100 too much pay one week. His boss, realizing his error, withheld $100 the next week.

The worker walked into his boss's office and said, "Hey, my pay is $100 short."

His boss said, "Yeah. I notice you didn't come in last week when it was $100 too much."

The worker replied, "Well, I figure anyone can make a mistake once, but when it happens twice, it's time to say something."
=======================================================
So let's do what you say: give Clinton a free pass, and hang all Republicans out to dry for offenses that aren't even on the radar when compared to the Clinton administration.

host · 12-12-2005, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

......I agree that this is one post that illuminates the gulf, but its relevance eludes me.

Quote:

That thread I linked above was sidetracked by your posts that advocated Victoria Toensing and her husband, Jospeph DiGenova as reliable sources on the subject of whether any law was broken in the "outing" of Valerie Plame.

Toensing and DiGenova, both former federal prosecutors of conservative political sympathies, if this link is any indication, have polluted the internet with their unceasing propagandist self-promotion, masked as authoritative comment. It might even seem convincing as a "public service" message, if not for it's frequency and repetitiveness.

Here is one of the reasons I have stopped responding. “That thread I linked was sidetracked by your posts”.

I find your claim that I “sidetracked” the thread to be outrageous. I posted something that directly related to the case, but because it did not follow the original poster’s assumption that a crime was committed, you call it “sidetrack(ing)”. I am very aware of the power of words and I strongly suspect you are doing exactly what you bemoan, i.e., putting your own spin on stories and words for the benefit of your own arguments. Do I blame you? No. We all do it. But when I call into question the basic assumption, you act hurt and attacked, or you call it “sidetracking” or call sources into question, blah blah blah.

The fact is that what I posted was VERY relevant, you just didn’t like it. It called into question the basic assumption of that a crime was committed, which contrary to what you may think, I still haven’t seen you post strong evidence that it has, nor that my basic article was faulty. All you did post was that the writers were conservative and somewhat attention whorish. If it helps, I will concede that point. But IMO, no one ever did adequately disprove the points they raised. And last time I checked, being an attention whore was not a crime.

Your assumptions about me and others amaze me at times. Do you wonder that I find it insulting that a) because I don’t agree with your voluminous postings that I don’t’ “inventory” my political opinions or that b) you are any less influenced by the venom they post at moveon.org?

Again, I think the truth is that you are amazed that after all the “evidence” you produce, all from “msm”, that not everyone is on your bandwagon. That we are not, can only be ascribed to some mental deficiency, “sheeple” tendencies, or propaganda brain washing. The other possibility, that the truth is probably somewhere in between and that you yourself may be suffering from a case of leftist propaganda doesn’t even occur to you.

Again, if it helps, I’ll concede that these days I tend to give more weight to conservative talking points than liberal ones. Can you admit the opposite?..............

Lebell, I took time to consider your denial that you "sidetracked" that <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=96647">thread</a> and after reading every post in it again, I will stand by my description of what you did there, even more firmly in view of your defense of your posting that Jan. 2005 WaPo/Toensing Op-Ed column, (linked and quoted below).

Here is the first post in that thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rofgilead

Today there was an article in the New York Times about documents showing that Vice President Cheney told his

aide Lewis Libby about Valerie Plume (the CIA agent who was married to a war critic and who's name got leaked to the press).

Lewis Libby had claimed under oath that he found out about her from journalists first. This shows that statement to have

been a lie.

If it can be traced as far up as VP Cheney, do you think that VP Cheney is going to be found to have been involved in the

leaking of her name?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=96647

Before you posted the following, stevo was the only poster, in more than 15 other replies, who raised the question as to whether Plame had undercover status when Novak wrote his column in July, 2003. stevo initiated the "sidetracking" effort,
IMO, and you drove it home with this assertion. There were no "ifs" in your point that "no crime was committed", and
you cited "an article written by the authors of the law", with no disclaimer that it was an op-ed piece from a highly
partisan source:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Undercover being the key point.

Plame hasn't been undercover for several years.

I posted an article written by the authors of the law that the current adminstration is accused of breaking and this was the

point they made.

No crime was committed because she wasn't undercover.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=22

Again here, you posted the link to the same WaPo "article", with an air of confidence concerning it's reliability that, I found troubling, knowing what I knew of it's author, Victoria Toensing. My research led me to the opposite conclusion; that Toensing was the point woman for a Rove inspired, Novak centric, talking point "Op" designed to discredit Fitzgerald and his investigation, and to "sidetrack", discussions such as the core one in that thread. Novak could have written that "article" himself...maybe he did!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The nice thing about this is that I don't have to argue a thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

(Here you go, Yakk)

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=32

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan11.html
The Plame Game: Was This a Crime?
By Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford
Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A21

Why have so many people rushed to assume that a crime was committed when someone "in the administration" gave columnist

Robert D. Novak, the name of CIA "operative" Valerie Plame? Novak published her name while suggesting that nepotism might have

lurked behind the CIA assignment of her husband, Joseph Wilson, to a job for which he was credentially challenged: The agency

sent him to Niger to determine whether Iraq was interested in acquiring uranium from that country, although he was an expert

neither on nuclear weapons nor on Niger.

Journalists are being threatened with jail for not testifying who gave them information about Plame -- even journalists who

did not write about Plame but only talked with sources about her. Ironically, the special prosecutor has pursued this case

with characteristic zeal after major publications editorialized that a full investigation and prosecution of the government

source was necessary. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution even claimed that the allegations came "perilously close to treason."

It's time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in which there is serious doubt that a crime was even

committed. Federal courts have stated that a reporter should not be subpoenaed when the testimony sought is remote from

criminal conduct or when there is no compelling "government interest," i.e., no crime. As two people who drafted and

negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the

surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct.

When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the

process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.

At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been

assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to

Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in

Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a

person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking

"affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the

CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the

case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a

possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures"

were being taken to protect her cover.

There are ways of perceiving whether the government was actually taking the required necessary affirmative measures to

conceal its relationship with Plame. We can look, for example, at how the CIA reacted when Novak informed the press office

that he was going to publish her name. Did the general counsel call to threaten prosecution, as we know has been done to

other reporters under similar circumstances? No., Did then-Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak

that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as we know is done when the CIA is serious

about prohibiting publication? No. Did some high-ranking government official ask to visit Novak or the president of his

newspaper syndicate to talk him out of publishing -- another common strategy to prevent a story? No.

Novak has written that the CIA person designated to talk with him replied that although Plame was probably not getting

another foreign assignment, exposure "might cause difficulties if she were to travel abroad." He certainly never told Novak that Plame would be endangered. Such a meager response falls far legally shy of "affirmative measures."

There is even more telling CIA conduct about Plame's status. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's

"Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," when the agency asked Plame's husband

to take on the Niger assignment, he did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement, a requirement for just about anybody

else doing work for an intelligence agency. This omission opened the door for Wilson to write an op-ed piece for the New York

Times describing his Niger trip. Did it not occur to our super sleuths of spycraft that a nationally distributed piece about

the incendiary topic of weapons of mass destruction -- which happens to be Wilson's wife's expertise -- could result in her

involvement being raised?

The special prosecutor and reporters should ask Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, who is overseeing the grand jury, to

conduct a hearing to require the CIA to identify all affirmative measures it was taking to shield Plame's identity. Before we

even think about sending reporters to prison for doing their jobs, the court should determine that all the elements of a

crime are present.

Victoria Toensing was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee from 1981 to 1984 and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. Bruce Sanford is a Washington lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues. The authors will take questions today at 2 p.m. on www.washingtonpost.com.

Later in this post, you can review all of the linked references that I've already presented on that thread (did you read any of them?) that are pretty persuasive in demonstrating that, since Victoria Toensing presumably provided her own description of her background at the bottom of her op-ed column above, it is difficult for your defense of the legitimacy of her "article" to "hold up". You presented her op-ed "article" as a legitimate and ethical opinion of a neutral expert....herself a former federal prosecutor and....co-author of the "law" that she claimed or inferred was the core issue in Fitzgerald's investigation. A more accurate description of Toensing is that she exhibited an alarming ethical lapse, for a former federal prosecutor, a practicing attorney, a frequently cited "expert" media commentator, an op-ed columnist, and even as a partisan "operative", by not disclosing that she (and her husband, Joseph DiGenova) was in a close friendship of longstanding with.......Robert Novak! Armed now with that information, and examining the sentences that I highlighted in her "article", do you still stand by your defense of her "article"? Her partisan background, history of self-promotion and opportunism, along with that of her husband, are relevant to consider, but not even necessary to expose the unethical and unreliable taint to her effort displayed in that WaPo column. If all of this is not enough for you to reconsider the stand that you took in the first quote box of this post, would any information be enough?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

Interesting column. I didn't pay attention to the early stages of this thing and was taking too much for

granted. Reading your link and some of the earlier AP stories tonight put the mess in a new light. It's one amazing horse

race.

Sure seems like many people on the inside could have diffused this long ago. They must have been transferred to FEMA.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=34

Lebell, read above, how your comments and your citation of the Toensing WaPo piece, influenced "cyrnel's" opinion, for however shortlived the duration of that influence actually lasted. Can you argue that you did not "sidetrack" him? Remember that you did not offer Toensing's "article" with a disclaimer, such as...."this seems to make some sense to me", you prefaced posting the link to that WaPo column, as if it contained fact that would end debate.

The following are excerpts from my posts on that thread. I've edited out most of my citations that do not speak directly to the issue of Toensing's partisanship and publicized ties to Robert Novak.

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The nice thing about this is that I don't have to argue a thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

(Here you go, Yakk)

I don't see that you have anything that will withstand an argument, Lebell...

Quote:

(From the last paragraph of Toensing's column, linked above....)
.........The special prosecutor and reporters should ask Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, who is overseeing the grand

jury, to conduct a hearing to require the CIA to identify all affirmative measures it was taking to shield Plame's identity.

Before we even think about sending reporters to prison for doing their jobs, the court should determine that all the elements

of a crime are present.

A month after Toensing's column appeared in the Wapo, the DC Circuit appeals court issued it's ruling in the following case.

Note that Judge Tatel was initially most reluctant to rule against Judith Miller, but Fitzgerald's evidence submissions (and

"voluminous classified findings")must have convinced Judge Tatel to change his mind......

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/do...n_02_15_05.pdf
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued December 8, 2004 Decided February 15, 2005
Reissued April 4, 2005
No. 04-3138
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, JUDITH MILLER

Before: SENTELLE, HENDERSON and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

From Judge Tatel (pages 70-72):

Judge Tatel (from page 81):

In fairness to Toensing, the following was reported six months after she persuaded the WaPo to print her BS opinion piece.

We'll document her track record as a partisan media whore "hack" in a followup post.

I have detailed the following before, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1839331&postcount=15">here</a> on

this forum. This is the political bomb shell case of your generation, folks. I'm disappointed that so much of what I've read

here lately, has even been posted. Early on....when I sorted out where this was going....and this being a "poltical forum", I

laid it out as best as I could. It's not too late to review my thread. I'd be interested to read opinions of what I've been

wrong about......

There's been so much focus on format and on wording in thread "titles". This post and the one that follows will convince some

of you that more curiousity about the material might have avoided Toensing's WaPo article being offered as substantative. It

clearly isn't.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...602069_pf.html
Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net
White House Effort To Discredit Critic Examined in Detail

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 27, 2005; A01

...........Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury

about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. ,<h3>He said he warned Novak, in the

strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the

mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.</h3>

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he

called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But

he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she

probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she

travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have

used her name."

Harlow was also involved in the larger internal administration battle over who would be held responsible for Bush using the

disputed charge about the Iraq-Niger connection as part of the war argument. Based on the questions they have been asked,

people involved in the case believe that Fitzgerald looked into this bureaucratic fight because the effort to discredit

Wilson was part of the larger campaign to distance Bush from the Niger controversy.............

<h4>Note that, even after the above article was published, Toensing is reported to frequently provide her opinion to the

press that "no law was broken". Toensing has persisted with her PR message during WARTIME.</h4>

There has been much repub "spin" about Fitzgerald's investigative "mandate".

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510150001
...........With Plame leak investigation looking bad for Rove and others, old misinformation resurfaces

As the investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of Valerie Plame's status as a CIA operative again receives extensive

media coverage, old misinformation about the investigation has flared up again.

Among the most common distortions is the claim -- advanced by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen and <h3>Victoria

Toensing (a close friend of syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak),</h3> among others -- that the investigation is only about

-- or should only be about -- whether anyone violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it

unlawful for someone to knowingly disclose the identity of an agent whose "intelligence relationship to the United States" is

being actively concealed. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has a much broader mandate, as Media Matters has noted:

Fitzgerald's official delegation as special prosecutor, which was reprinted in a 2004 Government Accountability Office <a

href="http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/302582.pdf#page=2">(GAO) decision paper</a>, did not limit his prosecutorial

authority to any particular statute. Rather, it granted him "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the

Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity." ..............

In addition to reading the GAO decision paper linked in the preceding quote box, other illuminating pieces that describe

Fitzgerald's mandate as akin to that of the Attorney General of the U.S. Unlike Special proscutor Ken Starr, Fitzgerald has

authority to operate with autonomy. He does not need to get justice department authorization (permission) to serve warrants

or to enlarge the scope of his investiagtion.........

Quote:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...doj-pconf.html
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS CONFERENCE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO OVERSEE INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED LEAK OF CIA AGENT IDENTITY AND RECUSAL OF ATTORNEY

GENERAL ASHCROFT FROM THE INVESTIGATION

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES COMEY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CHRISTOPHER RAY
DECEMBER 30, 2003

MR. COMEY: Good afternoon, folks..........

......I have today delegated to Mr. Fitzgerald all the approval authorities that will be necessary to ensure that he has the

tools to conduct a completely independent investigation........So, in short, I have essentially given him -- not essentially -- I have given him all the approval authorities that rest -- that are inherent in the attorney general; something that does not happen with an outside special counsel......

[/quote]
In a followup post, I added more linked references concerning the backgrounds of Victoria Toensing and her husband,
Joseph DiGenova.

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The nice thing about this is that I don't have to argue a thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

(Here you go, Yakk)

1.)The Victoria Toensing Jan. 2005 "column" that you cite at the WaPo link is an "op ed", i.e., an "opinion" piece. It is not

to be confused with news reporting by that newspaper or by other news or news wire services.

2.)There is nothing credible about Toensing or her husband. They are (if you call 300 TV appearances in a short period,

extreme....) partisan to the extreme, and difficult to imagine as anything other than obsessive, self promoters.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...uple022798.htm
The Power Couple at Scandal's Vortex

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 27, 1998; Page D1 .................

...........A classic Washington power couple, diGenova, 53, and Toensing, 56, occupy a strange, symbiotic nexus between the

media and the law that boosts their stock in both worlds. They are clearly players, which gives them access to juicy

information, which gets them on television, which generates legal business.

"Dozens of Washington lawyers are trying to get on these shows," diGenova says. "I think it's very healthy. We can destroy

myths and shoot down misunderstandings." Toensing sees televised debate as a good way of sharpening the old legal skills.

"It's something that gets the body juices going," she says.

The two law partners not only talk about the Monica Lewinsky investigation -- they've been quoted or on the tube more than

300 times in the month since the story broke -- but have been drawn into the vortex. Toensing was approached by an

intermediary for a Secret Service agent who had supposedly seen something untoward involving President Clinton and the former

intern. DiGenova was at the heart of a quickly retracted Dallas Morning News account of that matter. What's more, diGenova

took to the airwaves Sunday to charge -- based on nothing more than one reporter's inquiry -- that private investigators

"with links to the White House" were digging up "dirt" on him and his wife.

Never exactly press-shy when he was U.S. attorney, diGenova is a trifle sensitive to the notion that he is a partisan

publicity hound. Ensconced in a burgundy armchair in the living room of his ranch-style home in Bethesda's Kenwood section,

he glances stealthily at a blue card -- the kind TV people use to jot down their sound bites -- before delivering his point.

"I have never made a single telephone call to get on a television show, and neither has Victoria," he says. "We've never had

an agent. . . . I've never been paid a dime for any of it."................

............A Wide Net

Name a high-profile investigation in this city and chances are the prosecutorial pair is involved.

Charges that Republican Rep. Dan Burton improperly demanded campaign contributions from a lobbyist for Pakistan? DiGenova and

Toensing are the Indiana congressman's personal attorneys.

Newt Gingrich's ethics problems? Toensing represents the speaker's wife, Marianne, to ensure her compliance with House ethics

rules.

A House committee investigation of the Teamsters and the union's links to improper Democratic fund-raising? DiGenova and

Toensing are leading the probe as outside counsel.

(And don't shortchange Toensing's role. When the newspaper Roll Call ran an unflattering piece about conflict-of-interest

charges related to the couple's hiring, Toensing denounced the reporter as a sexist for leaving her out of the first few

paragraphs. "I'm just as big as he is!" she shouted at an editor. Toensing says now that "they pretended I didn't quite

exist. They attributed my client to Joe. I've had to deal with this all my life as a woman.")

The couple's Teamsters probe for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce has made them a lightning rod for

Democratic criticism. First there was grumbling that their official role would conflict with their work for other clients,

such as the American Hospital Association, for whom they are registered lobbyists. Then the Democrats charged that diGenova

and Toensing couldn't be doing much on their $300,000-a-year contract -- which requires each lawyer to put in 80 hours a

month -- since they spent so much time in television studios trashing President Clinton in the Lewinsky case.

Their television advocacy is hardly a state secret. <h4>As former prosecutors, both diGenova and Toensing have largely

defended the aggressive tactics of independent counsel Kenneth Starr and repeatedly challenged the president's veracity.</h4>

"They've become a public spectacle, which means they can't be impartial" in the Teamsters probe, says Missouri Rep. William

Clay, the committee's ranking Democrat. "It's a payoff from Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party to both Victoria Toensing

and Joe diGenova. . . . They have been on television over 200 times and not once have they been talking about an issue we're

paying them $25,000 a month to handle for the Congress. It's a hell of a part-time job."............

3.) Heavens, no !!! The following portrays Toensing, when compared to the bold quote above.....as a...."flip-flopper" !

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2304
.....Though both diGenova and Toensing are Republicans who are hostile to Clinton and supportive of Kenneth Starr, they

usually argue against the independent-counsel law in general......

4.)Victoria Toensing is on record as having a curious contempt for the law. What else could explain authorship of a "law",

intended to safeguard national security, that is described by said "author" as:

Quote:

http://www.yuricareport.com/Corrupti...veCIALeak.html
"We made it exceedingly difficult to violate," Victoria Toensing, who was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee

when the law was enacted, said of the law........

.............Based on the e-mail message, Mr. Rove's disclosures are not criminal, said Bruce S. Sanford, a Washington lawyer

who helped write the law and submitted a brief on behalf of several news organizations concerning it to the appeals court

hearing the case of Mr. Cooper and Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times.

"It is clear that Karl Rove's conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into that category" of criminal conduct, Mr.

Sanford said. "That's not 'knowing.' It doesn't even come close."

There has been some dispute, moreover, about just how secret a secret agent Ms. Wilson was.

"She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to

the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley."

But....what would one expect a close friend of Robert Novak, and an openly partisan republican like Toensing, to say, if not

the quotes above? She is not in the habit of disclosing her friendship with Novak as she interjects her "opinion" in this

matter, everywhere that she is able to.....
4.)Toensing did not disclose in the Jan. 2005 WaPo op-ed column, where she makes a point of defending her friend, Robert

Novak, that she is his friend. Toensing has appeared on TV frequently since, and is documented as failing to disclose her

relationship with Novak. This seems misleading and unethical.

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501140005
<h3>Press sightings of social interactions between Toensing, her husband, Joseph E. diGenova, and Novak abound:</h3>

* An October 1, 2004, <a href="http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/01/novak/index_np.html">article on

Salon.com</a> reported that Novak was a guest along with Toensing and diGenova at a September 21, 2004, party in Washington

to celebrate the success of the book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (Regnery, 2004).
* According to an October 17, 2001, "Reliable Source" column in The Washington Post, Novak was among "70 friends" hosted

by diGenova to celebrate Toensing's 60th birthday at the Palm restaurant.
* A February 27, 1998, profile of Toensing and diGenova in The Washington Post reported that "[t]he couple retreat on

weekends to their Fenwick Island, Del., beach house, hanging with such pals as Robert Novak and Bill Regardie."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...uple022798.htm

Novak has also defended or praised his friends Toensing and diGenova on at least three occasions in his nationally syndicated

column:

* "DiGenova, a conservative Republican, would introduce something new at the IRB [Teamsters union Internal Review Board].

He might recommend that it is time to end the monitoring that has cost the union more than $75 million. [Federal prosecutor

Mary Jo] White did her best to obstruct the 1998 congressional investigation of the Teamsters conducted by diGenova and his

law partner-wife, Victoria Toensing. Nor is diGenova an admirer of Mary Jo White's glacial pursuit of the pre-Hoffa

conspiracy between the Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and the Democratic National Committee as the statute of limitations is about to

block further prosecution." <a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2001/08/01/165366.html">[8/1/2001]</a>

5.)The Toensing op-ed column is riddled with inaccuracies:

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501140005

"Despite Toensing and Sanford's claim that Wilson was "credentially challenged" for Niger mission, Wilson had both <a

href="http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html">diplomatic credentials</a> as well as past experience investigating sales of

Nigerian uranium. USA Today reported that "Wilson had been an ambassador to Gabon and was posted to Niger earlier in his

career [with the U.S. Diplomatic Service, from 1976-1978]. In 1999, he had gone to Niger to gather information about rumors

of uranium sales to Iraq." Indeed, Wilson has <a href="http://www.leadingauthorities.com/4881/Joseph_Wilson.htm">specialized

in Africa</a> for the majority of his diplomatic career, which includes service in Niger, Togo, Burundi, and South Africa, as

well as ambassadorships to the Gabonese Republic and to the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe. Wilson was also

senior director for African affairs at the National Security Council under former President Clinton and also served as deputy

chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from 1988 to 1991.

Toensing and Sanford also asserted that Wilson was sent in 2002 "to Niger to determine whether Iraq was interested in

acquiring uranium from that country although he was an expert neither on nuclear weapons nor on Niger." In addition to

ignoring Wilson's previous diplomatic experience in Niger and experience investigating the sale of Niger uranium, their

assertion also misstated his mission: He did not go to Niger to determine "whether Iraq was interested," but rather whether

Iraq actually purchased or attempted to purchase uranium. According to a July 7, 2003, New York Times <a href="http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/White%20House%20Admits%20False%20Data.html">article,</a> Wilson "was sent

to Niger, in West Africa, last year to investigate reports of the attempted purchase [of Nigerian uranium by Iraq]."

The Washington Post identified Toensing as "chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee from 1981 to 1984 and served

as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration." Sanford was identified as "a Washington lawyer

specializing in First Amendment issues."

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510240007
USA Today again relied only on Toensing to suggest that outing Plame was not a crime

In an October 21 article, USA Today reporters Judy Keen and Mark Memmott relied exclusively on a reading of the law by

Republican operative Victoria Toensing in presenting the question of whether senior White House officials may have committed

a crime by outing CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The article marked at least the second time that Memmott cited Toensing -- without offering a contrary legal perspective --

in reporting that leaking Plame's identity likely wasn't a crime. Toensing has made frequent media appearances in defense of

the Bush administration and the alleged leakers, but she is not the only voice on this issue. Former Nixon White House

counsel John W. Dean III argued in 2003 that leaking Plame's identity might constitute a violation of the 1917 Espionage Act

and, more recently, that it could also violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 641, which addresses the theft of

information and, Dean wrote, contains "broad language [that] covers leaks" and "has now been used to cover just such

actions."

USA Today did not mention that Toensing is a partisan Republican or that she is a personal friend of syndicated columnist

Robert D. Novak, who originally outed Plame in July 2003.

.............

......In this post, http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=52
I provided:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006882.php
(October 28, 2005 -- 03:26 PM EDT // link)

Remember, I. Lewis Libby doesn't just work for the Vice President.

From the beginning of the administration, a key root of Libby's power at the White House is that he works both for the Vice President (as Chief of Staff and National Security Affairs Advisor) and the President (as Assistant to the President).
-- Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006881.php
(October 28, 2005 -- 03:04 PM EDT // link)

Overlooked in the current discussion.

Go to page 5 of the <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf">indictment</a>. Top of the page, item #9.

On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

This is a crucial piece of information. the <a href="http://www.cia.gov/employment/clandestine.html">Counterproliferation Division</a> (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but where the spies come from.

Libby's a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew. It's right there in the indictment.
-- Josh Marshal

I think that "strong evidence" that an "outing crime" of Plame was committed, was found in some of the language in Libby's
indictment, which was made a day or two after our orignial discussion. I originally provided much detail as to the wide scope of Fitzgerald's investigative authority, because Toensing's "Op" was to convince the public that the investigation was limited to whether a criminal offense had been committed, related to the one act that she had co-authored.

As you can see below, you failed to acknowledge the core issues that compromised Toensing's "article" to the point that it
cannot be defended, when I raised them at the end of October, or even now, if you re-examined them before defending her article again. IMO, the core issues are that Toensing enjoyed a personal friendship with Robert Novak, and did not disclose that fact in an op-ed piece that masquerades as a neutral piece of news reporting that purports to offer expert opinion of points of law as they pertain to an ongoing, highly publicized, criminal investigation. The "neutral piece of news reporting" was exposed by me to be a spirited, partisan defense of Robert Novak that was a vehicle for a Rovian talking point Op.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

.....The fact is that what I posted was VERY relevant, you just didn’t like it. It called into question the basic assumption of that a crime was committed, which contrary to what you may think, I still haven’t seen you post strong evidence that it has, nor that my basic article was faulty. All you did post was that the writers were conservative and somewhat attention whorish. If it helps, I will concede that point. But IMO, no one ever did adequately disprove the points they raised. And last time I checked, being an attention whore was not a crime.........

Ignoring all that has been reported since Toensing's Jan., 2005 op-ed piece, here she is ten months later, in Nov., 2005, after Fitzgerald's indictment has been made public, and after former CIA press spkesman, Marlow, quoted in the WaPo July 27, 2005 article displayed below....here she is droning on and on....still defending Novak...still not revealing that she is his
close friend....

Quote:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...+Journal&hl=en
Investigate the CIA
By VICTORIA TOENSING
November 3, 2005; Page A12

• Sixth: CIA incompetence did not end there. When Mr. Novak called the agency to verify Ms. Plame's employment, it not only did so, but failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Every experienced Washington journalist knows that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.

.........Ms. Toensing, a Washington lawyer, is a former chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...602069_pf.html
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 27, 2005; A01

...........Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury

about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. ,He said he warned Novak, in the

strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the

mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Lebell, I haven't visited the moveon.org site since the "Op" that falsely accused that site of endorsing a political ad that involved a WWII Nazi comparison. I told you already that I form my opinions based on my own research. I demonstrate that in most of my posts.

Finally, Lebell....Iraq is an "effing" mess...a disaster. My comments or opinion won't be a contributing factor to the failed
policy we experience there. Greatly informative ongoing study of the Bush debacle:
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf Most recent is Dec. 8, 2005:
page 28.... Average amount of electricity generated (In Megawatts)
November 2005 - 3742 MW
August 2004 - 4707 MW
June 2003 - 3193 MW
Est Pre War - 3958 MW
Stated Goal - 6000 MW by July 1, 2004

page 36........
<center><img src="http://me.to/svr052.gif"> 
Non-Partisan International Republican Institute , Board of Directors:
http://www.iri.org/board.asp
<img src="http://me.to/svr051.gif"></center>

Marvelous Marv · 12-12-2005, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

You just don't get this do you? Actually, I don't believe that. I think you DO get this and are pretending to be obtuse so that you can continue to rail on Clinton in a sad attempt to distract us from the current problems.

Personal attack.

Quote:

I really don't care what Clinton did. Why? Because Clinton isn't in office any more. I'm getting awfully tired of you guys using Clinton to excuse everything Bush has done and is doing. It doesn't matter what Clinton did as far as whether or not it excuses what Bush is doing. Nothing Clinton could possibly have done gives Bush a free pass to do whatever wrongs he wants to do. The sooner the liberals get that through their heads the better. Yes, I did say liberals. The "conservatives" (btw, if you side with bush, you're not a conservative) already know that - they're just trying to bullshit the liberals to distract from the inadequacies of their president.

Well, the Bush supporters don't have Janet Reno to stonewall for them.

Quote:

first I'm not sure why you put wife in quotes. Are you suggesting that marriages that aren't between two conservatives are morally wrong too?

Strawman. No, I did it because their marriage is a sham.

Quote:

And second, you might want to stop there. You're displaying a shocking lack of knowledge about the healthcare system. Or are you suggesting that it's a much better system to have millions without insurance, millions more with inadequate coverage, and the rest of us largely dependant on HMO's who say things like cancer treatments are medically unnecessary, while at the same time companies across the country are struggling to meet mounting benefits costs?

Are you still pissed about your medical bills? Get over it, it's ancient history, like Clinton. And if Bush learned from Clinton, he'll wait a couple of years and pardon Cunningham, like Clinton pardoned Dan Rostenkowski.

Quote:

And that's campaign CONTRIBUTORS. Saying that's Clinton's fault is rather like saying I'm guilty of murder because I met a murderer once. Let's get just a touch realistic in our arguments, shall we?

Then all of the people who bribed Cunningham aren't guilty. Your line of reasoning is seriously flawed.

Quote:

This from the same group of people that say just being investigated doesn't mean anything and we should ignore it. Oh, now I get it. That's when a REPUBLICAN is investigated. When anyone ELSE gets investigated, they deserve the chair. I love hypocracy, don't you?

Better tell that to the people who want to send DeLay and Cheney to the chair. And Frist, and Libby, and any other Republican with a parking ticket.

Quote:

A statistic from a rather pathetic list. This list includes his brother Roger (drug trafficking) - so now Clinton is responsible for the crimes of his family? Neat! Let's start talking about Jenna and Laura then shall we? And let's dig up everyone Bush has ever had any slight contact with (or even reach further than that if we want to stay in the spirit of your list) and see who gets more convictions.

SHALL WE? You're about five years behind the times. If a tenth of the stonewalling occurs that Janet Reno undertook, there wont' be a single conviction.

Quote:

And how many were audited who were not critical of the Clinton administration? I'll give you a hint. It's a hell of a lot more than 45, which makes your point meaningless.

Not even YOU believe that one.

Quote:

What is your point? That has nothing to do with what is happening NOW. NOW is important. Clinton screwing some chick over a decade ago is NOT important.

Then chill, and in five years, whatever Bush did or didn't do won't be important.

Quote:

I'm cutting a bunch of the crap you wrote because it's just not worth replying to, but this one I HAD to address.

I'm cutting you off now. Your post is too Host-like.

pan6467 · 12-12-2005, 03:36 AM

I start by saying this is not personal Marv, hopefully you learn something..... or you'll blast me and choose to take it as personal.

If you want to persuade people to see your side persuade, and debate. If you want a pissing contest then your post succeeded.

I know you can do better I've seen it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Personal attack.

PErhaps, or perhaps he is frustrated with the fact the right continually lets Bush off by pointing to Clinton.

2 Wrongs do not make a right no matter what. To let someone go for partisan reasons or because "your guy did worse" is pathetic, bullshit and destroying the nation.

If you went after Clinton, you should go after Bush equally hard or it was all partisan bullshit.

To me what Clinton did wasn't that big of a deal, it didn't affect me. If Bush lied, if Bush played or fudged with info, then it is our business, and has affected my life. I think there is enough evidence to justify investigations. There was less evidence in evrything Clinton did, but the GOP wanted him investigated to death. This isn't sour grapes, this is there is evidence out there and we should get to know the truth. Otherwise we show that as long as it's the party in charge and we are of that party, that politician can get away with anything...... it's bullshit.... it's time to call politicians on their shit and hold them to the high standards the GOP said we should.... or the GOP has no right to EVER again bitch about another Dem.

I thought when the GOP went after Clinton it was because they had higher standards of what the office of the president stood for....... your reply show that if in fact you believe this going after Clinton was 100% partisan and not for the good of the country.

And that it's ok whatever Bush does because he is from the same party as you so he gets a free pass.

Time to either admit the truth or start holding ALL politicians regardless of party to the same standards.

Quote:

Well, the Bush supporters don't have Janet Reno to stonewall for them.

So again, because the previous administration did it, and you didn't like the answers, it's ok if your guy does it, because ????????

Quote:

Strawman. No, I did it because their marriage is a sham.

Seems like you have your own little fallacy also, do you know for a fact the Clinton's marriage is a "sham"..... Do you know what truly goes on in their relationship?

If you don't then it's bullshit to refer it as a "sham". Because unless you know for a fact and have evidence to show.... you lost credibility with me. Not because of your partisan views but because you label what you do not have justification to label. And you do so in bitterness and it's bullshit.

I don't call the Bush's marriage a sham even though the daughter's kind of look like Bush's but were "adopted".

See how nasty that sounds.

You are willing to upset and would rather start a fight, lose your debate and take cheap shots by saying "their marriage is a sham" ..... than to stick to facts and deabte the true issues.

Quote:

Are you still pissed about your medical bills? Get over it, it's ancient history, like Clinton. And if Bush learned from Clinton, he'll wait a couple of years and pardon Cunningham, like Clinton pardoned Dan Rostenkowski.

You call personal attack, and then you do the same thing.

So again because Clinton was "slime" it's ok for Bush to be? And this proves your party is better how??????????

And if Clinton is ancient history why do you keep bringing him up to "ok" what your party's president does?

Quote:

Then all of the people who bribed Cunningham aren't guilty. Your line of reasoning is seriously flawed.

Better tell that to the people who want to send DeLay and Cheney to the chair. And Frist, and Libby, and any other Republican with a parking ticket.

SHALL WE? You're about five years behind the times. If a tenth of the stonewalling occurs that Janet Reno undertook, there wont' be a single conviction.

Not even YOU believe that one.

Then chill, and in five years, whatever Bush did or didn't do won't be important.

So instead of debating the issues you still refer to Clinton 5 years out of office, yet "whatever Bush did or didn't do won't be important" you don't want the same criteria applied to Bush??????

Quote:

I'm cutting you off now. Your post is too Host-like.

I don't understand what one is supposed to get out of your reply anyway?

That because Clinton was bad and Reno "stonewalled" it's ok for Bush to be bad and stonewall?

You call personal attack and then make one.

And you showed nothing in support of Bush, just that Clinton was bad, and that makes it ok for Bush to be.

Redundant are my respnoses in here because you're whol post was basically Clinton did this, so Bush gets a free pass.

And you want everyone to believe the GOP is the "Moral" party???????? Doesn't sound like it to me.

Moral would be to hold Bush above those Clinton standards..... which in this post you have shown you refuse to do.

12-01-2005, 12:14 AM	#48 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Shakran, Good points and I do agree, Nixon would have been ok if he had just come clean and held those responsible, responsible. Clinton also. Both lied, both covered up. I have said many times, IMHO, Nixon was in some ways the best president in my lifetime, followed by Clinton. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

12-02-2005, 05:40 AM	#50 (permalink)
killinspiders Upright Location: Montrose,Colorado	I notice how everyone talks like there are only two choices of party. Become a Libertarian! Let's show the great evil two that they are no longer "all that"! The government is FULL of corruption on every side. The politicians are only in it for the money and the power! It is WE who need to remind them WHO THEY WORK FOR! The only way we can do that is to be aware of what is going on, write to our congress people and other politicians, and VOTE VOTE VOTE! It is good to see people paying attention! __________________ Life is an incurable, 100% fatal, sexually transmitted disease.

12-07-2005, 05:55 PM	#52 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	i don't try to foray into this forum too much but, in my humble opinion, Dwight David Eisenhower was the last republican president who upheld the ideals of his party... __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it.

12-10-2005, 11:58 PM	#60 (permalink)
host Banned	Lebell, your response implies that you did not read, or if you did read, you did not consider the point in the first parts of my post: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=53 You posted "bingo" earlier, as if it is obvious that we are currently experiencing a wave of "bi-partisan" scandal. It isn't obvious. We aren't. If you want to go back five years, ten, fifty, or one hundred, for the purpose of comparing scandals, propose doing that yourself. I compared what the talking points in the media today are, with the reality of the current situation. Quote Rush, quote a long list from a site that is sending out a smokescreen of "damage control" in response to current and recent MSM reports. They hardly rise to counter what I pointed out was coming from a WaPo reporter who had set a comparsion criteria of elected officials, federal and in governor's mansions, who had been tainted by corruptionj scandals <b>in the past year</b>. The point that he confirmed was that the current reports of scandals are so skewed towards current and very recent republican office holders, that <b>his editor had to depart from the comparison criteria of timeframe to add a fallen democrat whose scandal and resignation did not even take place in that time frame.</b> He admitted that a WaPo editor had inserted the out of timeframe democrat to balance the survey. Republican CT governor Rowland, who is currently in federal prison and resigned in the same timeframe as the democrat who was inserted "for balance", was not added to the survey. Rush Limbaugh and you seem to have a strikingly similar agenda.....a spin that we are currently in a period of bi-partisan scandal. I submit that this cannot be possible if the overwhelming majority of those recently indicted, convicted, or who have resigned, as well as those reported to be targets of criminal investigation, are of <b>one party</b>. I solicited posts that counter the premise that current and recently identified scandal suspects and convicts are overwhelmingly republican, and you resorted to targeting me personally, and citing Rush's talking points about past scandals. I suspect that you resorted to responding that way because that was all you had to go with. The American electorate has gotten as far down to the bottom of historical scandals as we are likely to get. The current ones need attention; if for no other reason, than to examine, via, as in the past, congressional ethics and other committee investigations where targets are subpoenaed and questioned under oath. Thus far, it is unprecedented that this process is not taking place. It is vital to find the depth and breadth of the dereliction of duty taking place, as the Cunningham guilty plea and to some extent, the Libby indictment, exemplify. How does a media that picks up and repeats Rush's talking points that highlight historic scandals, do anything but downplay and mislead us as to the seriousness of what prosecutors are investigating, and congress, the white house, and republican dominated state houses are not; so far, at least. I'm not talking about exaggeration by the media that would beat up on one party. I'm simply observing that the media is not calling it as it is unfolding in a contemporary setting......or do you, Lebell, think that it is fair to all of us that there are no ethics hearings taking place in congress, and no relevant committee investigations into activities like Cunningham's admission of taking $2.4 million in bribes to influence defense spending, or of Libby's and Rove's involvment in the deliberate outing of Plame? Will we get closer to dealing with current scandals and getting a sense of who is at fault by printing Rush's talking points as news, or by printing the survey linked early in my post that was accurate, but, in the view of a WaPo editor, needed an out of timeframe former democratice congressman named "Ballance", added to the survey in an attempt to "balance" it. Just like Rush's talking points, that WaPo editor's effort obscured the public's view to what is going on.....the scope of the scandals that justice must respond to...the ones that are relevant and where much is still unknown and can hurt the national security, finances, welfare, and integrity of the government. Lebell, you went around or missed my first question, here's another for you: How does....well....Bill Clinton wagged the dog in 1998, help us meet today's scandals head on.....identify and investigate them, exonerate or punish those accused, and fix the problems that are identified in the process? Last edited by host; 12-11-2005 at 12:21 AM..

12-11-2005, 01:26 AM	#61 (permalink)
alpha phi seeker Location: home	Host: Replicrat........Demicon You are missing the point. the European monarchy have "kept it in the family", since Alexander the great. You may have forgotten that. The Elite has not. 36 of the 43 presidents are related. http://www.familyforest.com/Kerry_Bush_Cousins.html In fact most of the elite is of the royal families Politicians Actors CEO's http://www.wargs.com/political/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in604163.shtml http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/08/294770.shtml http://www.chickenmcnugget.com/pics/bushkerry.htm http://www.illuminati-news.com/royal-trees.htm Thought we were free of the criminal monarchs in 1776? We almost did it. The biggest difference is we have a new king every 4-8 years, rather then a lifetime. Is a criminal more or less of a criminal if he...... 1. is represented by an elephant...... 2. is represented by an ass....... __________________ All ideas in this communication are sole property of the voices in my head. (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 "The Voices" (TM). All rights reserved.

11-30-2005, 03:13 PM	#42 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I think the only reason we are seeing more Republican corruption at the moment is that they are the party in power. The reverse is just as likely to be true if the Dems were in power. Why throw money at someone that can't do anything for you? "Lobbyist" is a term that is likely surpassing "personal injury lawyers" to describe bottom feeding behavior.

12-02-2005, 06:07 PM	#51 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Umm, killinspiders? Partner, around these here parts, ya done threadjacked the topic. T'aint no killin' offense, but we shore do ask newcomers to town to read up on the rules and such. PS: Love your sig line.

12-11-2005, 07:48 AM	#62 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Marv, you posted a lot of trash on Clinton but if we use the same stick the the conservitives on this board to measure (conviction not allegations or indictments) there is nothing on Clinton. So please point out where Clinton was convicted of wrong doing. Remember he was impeached by the house but not the senate. Please point out to me where Clinton was indicted? You can bitch all day long about Clinton giving evasive testimony but at least he was willing to testify under oath. It is easy not to have to give evasive testimony when you refuse to testify under oath..... And lebell do you think a website called boycottliberalism.com might be a little biased? The scandals people are bringing up on the republican party are found on foxnews not killalltheevilconservatives.com. Last edited by Rekna; 12-12-2005 at 07:44 AM..

12-11-2005, 10:22 AM	#65 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	yet another lesson in "personal responsbility" republican style. rule number 1: whenever and wherever scandal erupts that injures your side, any and all types of dissociation are permitted. correlate: it is preferred if the dissociation you choose to indulge dovetails with the talking points of that mighty conservative intellectual dynamo limbaugh (or another reactionary talking head take your pick--the characteristic feature of conservative politics is centrally co-ordinated talking points---this leaves the servility set with a number of talking heads to choose from--rifling through these options can be comfortably confused with thinking.) so now your dissociation has a structure. indulge at will. you might wonder about occaision. well, here's a scenario in q and a form that outlines a rationale for dissimulation conservative style: Q. what justifies dissociation? A. justification can be found via any disengenuous reading of material critical of the right---so you have a far right administration that generates scandal atop scandal.clearly any discussion of such scandal is carried out by people who are opposed to conservative politics. this oppostion cannot possibly have a rational basis. so it follows that opposition=hatred. so any and all critiques of bushworld, or of conservative politics in general, can be reduced to "you just hate republicans." from here, content-free non-discussion can be caried out across a series of facile one-liners. note: from an outside perspective, this line of reasoning can appear to be totally abject---from a conservative viewpoint, it is a simple mapping of servility from one space into another. because committment to right ideology is a matter of faith to begin with, argument occupies a secondary status. it can always be dispensed with. indulge projection---claim the following: there is nothing specific about conservative scandal--everyone and everything is involved with scandal--once you make this move, time, space, logic--all are unnecessary---what matters is dissolving conservative-generated scandal into a generalized morass. discussion becomes impossible. in the breakdown of discussion, conservatives find solace. by finding solace, they imagine victory. when confronted with yet another sequence of facts that appear to cast conservatives in a bad light, deploy your sense of being-persecuted. at all costs, refuse to accept any responsibility. why? because reality is often ugly. it is best to run away. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-11-2005 at 10:24 AM..

12-11-2005, 04:09 PM	#71 (permalink)
hrandani Insane	I may be a jackass, but I find your comments hilarious Lebelle. Not going to say anything further because of the mod - stick.