Comments on: Monica Goodling: In Service Of The Religious Right, Not America

By: Jody

Jody — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:50:14 +0000

“Because, Jademold, you horse’s ass, if her activities were public, they wouldn’t have to ask her anything.”

Ask Valerie Plame how concerned this administration is in regards to public disclosure.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:04:59 +0000

Needn’t? It’s called oversight. It’s one of the reason Congress exists.

By: fd10801

fd10801 — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:29:14 +0000

Which is why the administration needn’t give a single pure and simple answer to why they fired these attorneys.

By: frameone

frameone — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 00:59:09 +0000

“This is a witch hunt, pure and simple.”

Yes which is why the administration can’t give a single pure and simple answer to why they fired these attorneys.

By: z adura

z adura — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:33:29 +0000

Mike, are you referring to the tempest in a teapot known as “Travelgate?” If so, let’s first establish whether you thought that was a legitimate use of Independent Counsels Kenneth Starr and Robert Ray. Furthermore, I would like to establish whether you are equating the firing of Billy Dale, who offered to plead guilty to financial malfeasance, with the firing of U.S. Attorneys who were not enthusiastic enough of the president’s priorities.

The way you answer these two questions will say a lot about whether you think the current investigation is appropriate, but I am legitimately interested to see how you think.

By: fd10801

fd10801 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:19:00 +0000

Because, Jademold, you horse’s ass, if her activities were public, they wouldn’t have to ask her anything.
Secondly, you sound like someone who watched too many Hal Holbrook movies. The Dems are out for blood. This is a witch hunt, pure and simple

By: Jadegold

Jadegold — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:50:38 +0000

Would, could. Doesn’t make much difference in this instance does it?

The fact is the very pious Ms. Goodling had her lawyers send a letter to Congress that said they shouldn’t call her to testify because she’d take the Fifth. Seems she knows that she’ll be in legal jeopardy if she testifies.

Again, how can Bush Jr. dead-enders like Jay and Frankie believe it’s a good thing that a public official refuse to testify about her public activities?

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:13:22 +0000

Of course the people in the AG’s office could testify and use Hillary’s old standby, “I’m sorry, I can’t recall …” I hear it worked well for Reagan too.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:11:58 +0000

“She forced many very talented, career people out … so she could replace them with junior people that were either loyal to the administration or would score her some points…”

Gee, for a minute there I thought the article was about Hillary Clinton running her husband’s White House.

Really, the Democrats’ attempts at criminalizing politics via show trials are so juvelile.

I wonder how the Dems would react if the Bush White House suddenly ordered the AG to subpoena Dianne Feinstein and force her to testify under oath in televised hearings about whether she voted for appropriations in order to line her husband’s pockets. That would be very entertaining, and pretty much on par with what the Dems are trying to to do Gonzales.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:42:08 +0000

In answer to questions that have not been asked yet.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:16:09 +0000

The horror that someone from the Justice Dept. has to take the 5th about things they haven’t even said yet.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:57:57 +0000

Yes Jay, the horror. That someone from the department of justice has to take the fifth in order not to incriminate themself.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:49:05 +0000

So now there’s something wrong with a person invoking their constitutional rights in order to protect themselves legally?

The horror.

Of course, Jadegold, on a weekend pass, says that because she did this, she believed her testimony “would” place her in legal jeopardy. Not true. She did so because what she says could place her in legally jeopardy, so why take chances?

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:07:54 +0000

OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury of his peers so let’s not give too much credence to the Libby jury which was comprised of something like 100% committed liberals from the DC area jury ppol

Jesus, the slippery slope this places you on. If the wrongness of the OJ jury is your barometer for Libby’s jury, it might as well be the barometer for all American juries. If you don’t have any faith at all in the American justice system, then do something about it or find another country with a justice system to your liking.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:00:35 +0000

So Libby was simply not savvy enough to manage the chronic cases of selective amnesia or the ability to get one’s alibi straight that everybody else in this administration seems to use so well. Got it. He did nothing wrong, he just wasn’t clever enough to avoid getting caught doing nothing wrong.

Being quoted Emerson’s “foolish consistency” line by one of the most predictable posters I’ve seen so far on this site is just funny.

By: realist911

realist911 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:55:59 +0000

You have to love how the leftists always want to attach someone’s religious beliefs to some alleged wrongdoing only when it suits them to do so. Funny how repeatedly cheating on his wife and popping out bastard children never seemed to impact the “Reverend” Jesse Jackson’s standards with his permanent race victim consitituency. By the way, OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury of his peers so let’s not give too much credence to the Libby jury which was comprised of something like 100% committed liberals from the DC area jury ppol. Watch the appeals process on that one. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the decision is ultimately overturned.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:35:16 +0000

Libby was found guilty of lying and obstruction of justice, Frank. The sooner you come to terms that Libby lied all on his own and wasn’t tricked, the sooner you can get out of nutjob delusional daycare.

By: fd10801

fd10801 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:21:06 +0000

SpiderJ: No, I mean that Libby was found guilty of conflicting testimony — the prosecution turned it into perjury. “A jury of his peers” was fooled by it.

Also, you have no idea what you’re talking about. jadegold does. He has been condescendingly referring to me as “Frankie” for years. He draws some Puckish delight from calling people he disagrees with by silly made up names. You should know this — he’s been doing it for a long time.

As for the remark I made to frameone yesterday (which hasn’t got a damn thing to do with what I said to jadegold today), he has a habit of getting meaner and meaner when you don’t immediately see things his way. You should know that, as well. I saw it coming, and I called him on it.

as for you: I believe it was R.W. Emerson who said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:05:47 +0000

You mean how Libby was accused of committing perjury under oath and was convicted of said crime by a jury of his peers?

Also:

“I see the insults are beginning to creep in. If you want me to participate in this discussion, you should stop.”

-fd10801

By: fd10801

fd10801 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:28:07 +0000

Jademold: “her testimony would place her in legal jeopardy.” And that’s all.

I think this, and similar refusals to testify, are related to what happened to Libby.

Still haven’t got that nick down, eh?

fd10801, asshole!