Advertisement

Proof of the president's corruption - finally I see the light

topic posted Fri, September 29, 2006 - 8:10 AM by  Unsubscribed
Share/Save/Bookmark
Some people think that the usual and common place contact with high rollers and power brokers ( who end up being charged with crimes) somehow plays to impeach the President’s credibility – as though the Prez automatically ought to divine the potential criminality of those who seek him out.

I say this is nothing but mud slinging. With made up mud. I say it’s a fake, a chimerical pile of crap, a red herring.

But, ,but, but there have been 495 documented contacts between Jack Abramoff and d the Prez. Doesn’t that prove the Prez is a criminal ?? Oh 495?? That is so Horrible. C’mon every high roller is always trying to get in bed with high politicians. Every single one.

Looking at history in the USA this president appears to have the only DOJ that has ever - ever - gone after high rolling corporate offenders.
This is the only administration that has ever -- ever - obtained serious criminal convictions for high rolling corporate offenders.
Convictions during the Clinton Administration had merely resulted in fines. www.motherjones.com/news/fea...otc1.html
But no one mentions this. Odd that.

Instead the leftists are all a twitter over various instances of contact between the president and these characters who are under investigation, going to jail, or in trial.
Never do these people consider the fact that power brokers - all of them - always try to get chummy chummy with high level politicians. www.corporatecrimereporter.com/07...tml

Never has there been a government anywhere in the world at any time in history when high rollers were not using their money and influence to get more money and influence and doing it (inter alia) through getting close to governments. So then, why is such a big deal that they do it when GW is in the Whitehouse? And why does that automatically bleed some form of wrong onto the president? I say it’s nothing but the twisting of facts to suit a pre-set agenda. But then, Isn’t that one of the many ways how politics is always played. Yah it is.


But c’omon on give credit where it’s Due.
Criminals prosecuted by the George W Bush Administration:

Jack Abramoff: Guilty
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...74.html

TYCO Ex- CEO Dennis Kozlowski,
www.businessweek.com/magazin...3001.htm

TYCO former CFO Mark Swartz
www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshot...ug1.html

TYCO ex-general counsel Mark Belnick Indicted.
edition.cnn.com/2002/BUSIN...12/us.tyco/

TYCO: Mr. Enniscorthy facine 30 years in prison
readthehook.com/stories/20...ycoCfo.html

See also:
www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904115.html
fl1.findlaw.com/news.findl...dictment%22
fl1.findlaw.com/news.findl...dictment%22

And see: www.usatoday.com/money/com...rime_x.htm



Enron Corp. Ken lay, prosecuted to the point of death. He is dead. topics.nytimes.com/top/refe...ndex.html


Enron: Jeffrey Skilling (possibly the rest of his life in prison) abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory
Skilling just can’t get a break anywhere: www.latimes.com/business/l...99371.story (not that he deserves one but it’s just a plain fact that he cant)

Enron: Andrew Fastow - 6 years in prison
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...58.html
today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx

WorldCom Inc. Bernie Ebbers - 25 years in prison
money.cnn.com/2005/07/13/...rs_sentence/
www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/20...1929652.htm
At 65 and suffering from a heart complaint, Ebbers is likely to spend the rest of his life in prison.



Adelphia: John Rigas – Guilty conspiracy and fraud

Adelphia – Timothy Rigas - Guilty conspiracy and fraud

Adelphia – Michael Rigas - acquitted but may be bankrupt from defending himself.

Adelphia - Michael Mulcahey – acquitted but may be bankrupt from defending himself.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l9.html
topics.nytimes.com/top/refe...ndex.html
www.multichannel.com/article...728.html


KPMG
lawprofessors.typepad.com/white..._.html
www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx




This DOJ has managed to get the past Attorney Client Privilege for corporate counsel helping to hide corporate crimes from prosecution. This DOD is the first in all US history ever to pursue Corporate Criminal Liability.
www.heritage.org/Research/...wm1195.cfm


Corporate bastards not getting their way under the administration of George W. Bush:

Arthur Andersen Obstructed federal investigation, including destruction of documents. Guilty by jury. (www.andersen.com/) money.cnn.com/2002/06/13/...sen_verdict/
Leslie Caldwell, chief of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco, led the investigation into Andersen and is also head of the Enron task force. She vowed to get to the bottom of the "Enron debacle," but declined to comment on any future indictments. "We are not finished with Arthur Andersen," she said.
Banco Popular De Puerto Rico Failed to report suspicious financial activity, including deposit of drug money in paper bags. $22 million forfeiture

Guidant's EndoVascular Technologies Failed to report faulty surgical devices involved in 12 deaths. $92 million in penalties HCA Filed false Medicare and Medicaid claims since 1980s and paid kickbacks to doctors. $631 million in penalties

PNC Financial Services Fraudulently moved $762 million in troubled loans to off-balance-sheet accounting entities. $115 million in penalties and restitution (to investors) Tyson Foods
www.usatoday.com/money/200...pcrime.htm


And lets not forget: Tom Delay – who isn’t skipping of any hooks due to knowing the president.
posted by:
Unsubscribed
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     
    And it's shining so bright.
    • HUD Secretary Admitted "Bias" Against Bush Critics
      ThinkProgress.com

      Thursday 28 September 2006

      An investigation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Inspector General reportedly revealed that HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson instructed staff to award HUD contracts to President Bush's political allies and withhold them from his political opponents. The HUD IG, however, has refused to make the full 340-page report public.

      ThinkProgress - which has previously published the executive summary - has obtained access to the entire report. Testimony from Jackson, his top deputies, and HUD legal counsel, none of which has previously been reported, show that the agency set aside the rules, assisted its political allies, and made life difficult for its political opponents. Here are some key excerpts:

      1. Against the advice of HUD legal counsel, Jackson regularly met with potential HUD contractors. From page 110 of the report:
      Regarding JACKSON's involvement with contracting matters, [former Acting HUD General Counsel Kathleen] Koch advised JACKSON would meet with individuals who were either contractors or who wanted to obtain contracts at HUD. Koch stated, "We warned him against it." Koch and her staff used to review the daily schedule for the previous HUD Secretary, Mel Martinez, to advise if there were potential problems, but that practice "just petered out" after JACKSON became Secretary. When potential HUD contractors wanted to meet with Martinez, they would be kept away from Martinez …

      On page 156 of the report, Jackson himself admits regularly meeting with potential contractors:
      JACKSON acknowledged that he does meet with individuals seeking contracts with HUD, stating "I've met with a lot of them … They come over to me … I say to them sure, we'd love to do business with you … "

      2. Jackson explicitly acknowledged that he would not assist people who are critical of President Bush. From page 153:
      [W]ell my position is if you're going to castigate me, castigate our President, I'm not going to sit here and lie to you, I'm not going out of the way to call Norm Mineta and say see Officer Medici and make sure that he does X-Y-Z. I'm not going to do it. I will not do it, and I'm not going to say that I will … So I'm not going to go out of my way to help somebody who's castigating the President … Now, if that's my bias, I have it.

      3. Jackson's deputies attempted to circumvent competition rules to secure a contract for a Republican PR firm. From page 216:
      Cathy MacFarlane, Assistant Secretary, Public Affairs, acknowledged requesting a contract for Spaeth Communications. Spaeth had done previous public relations work for MacFarlane, Baylor and JACKSON, as well as various Republican-affiliated organizations, cited in the contract application documentation. The contract was initially to be awarded under the "Unusual and Compelling Urgency Exemption to the Competition in Contracting Act."

      The request for the extraordinary procedures was blocked by Associate Counsel John Opitz. He elaborated on the Spaeth contract on page 218:
      There is a "facial" concern in Spaeth's references to her firm's prior politically related work. In retrospect, it does raise questions. Was the award based on her ability to do work or her prior connections, including her connection to JACKSON? I do not know the answer to that.

      The HUD IG report also documents that Jackson obstructed a contract for Abt Associates because they supported Democrats, according to Jackson's Chief of Staff. Nevertheless, throughout the report Jackson repeatedly denies that he has ever improperly influenced any HUD contract.

      Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. John Olver have all called on Secretary Jackson to resign.
      • Unsu...
         
        ****** On page 156 of the report, Jackson himself admits regularly meeting with potential contractors:
        JACKSON acknowledged that he does meet with individuals seeking contracts with HUD, stating "I've met with a lot of them … They come over to me … I say to them sure, we'd love to do business with you … "

        2. Jackson explicitly acknowledged that he would not assist people who are critical of President Bush. From page 153:
        [W]ell my position is if you're going to castigate me, castigate our President, I'm not going to sit here and lie to you, I'm not going out of the way to call Norm Mineta and say see Officer Medici and make sure that he does X-Y-Z. I'm not going to do it. I will not do it, and I'm not going to say that I will … So I'm not going to go out of my way to help somebody who's castigating the President … Now, if that's my bias, I have it. ***********

        He was a naughty boy. However, thoise facts in no way says that the President was aware of this guys wackyness.
        • well, there's one reason i dislike bush. he SHOULD know whats going on in his administration, especially since any misdeeds will most likely be like a snake in the grass, waiting to be found and waiting to bite him in the ass.
          • Unsu...
             
            ******well, there's one reason i dislike bush. he SHOULD know whats going on in his administration, especially since any misdeeds will most likely be like a snake in the grass, waiting to be found and waiting to bite him in the ass.**********

            Indeed. However, there are levels and levels and levels. Things must be delegated and then again and again. If someone down the chain condusts wrongly it is entirely possoble that the guy on top won't ever have reason to know. Untill that person is caught. Then everyone lovves to insist that the guy on top should have known that it was his job to know. But it is quite often not his job to know it was his job to delegate.

            I suspect the reason you dislike GW is simply that his ideas of how things ought to be are very didsimilar from yours such that you fiind it troubling when things turn out as they do.

            I say take heart. He can't run in 08. So you'll be rid of him then for sure.
            It's Newt Gingrich that you'l have to hate for the next 4 years.


    • Cliff, this whole thing ain't done yet man I wouldn't be bragging. Your welcome to speculate but even if the rats in it don't know each other it's still a nest and it kinna stinks.
      Gotta say that was a catchy headline you put out! Congrats I was fooled and almost welcomed you to the land of the living.
      • Unsu...
         
        *****Cliff, this whole thing ain't done yet man I wouldn't be bragging. *******
        Not Bragging merely the counter point voice in a tribe where people tend to say the mose outrageous things and then others simply chime in with unquestioning agreement.
        I am the voice in the wilderness crying out: "Don't believe everything they say because they awon't ever tell you everything."

        You guys are saying the same thing - sort of - except that her in this tribe I feel like the oppressed moinority where you feel that way other places.


        *****Your welcome to speculate but even if the rats in it don't know each other it's still a nest and it kinna stinks.********
        Has any powerful politician ever not been corrupt? Any Ever? I know that's a wide net to cast but I think it's a fair query.

        (fair query - - - that almost sounds like something else.)



        ******Gotta say that was a catchy headline you put out! Congrats I was fooled and almost welcomed you to the land of the living.**********
        Thanks .
        • <Not Bragging merely the counter point voice in a tribe where people tend to say the mose outrageous things and then others simply chime in with unquestioning agreement.
          I am the voice in the wilderness crying out: "Don't believe everything they say because they awon't ever tell you everything." >
          Pure Straw.

          <You guys are saying the same thing - sort of - except that her in this tribe I feel like the oppressed moinority where you feel that way other places. >
          Typical "conservative" place to hide in an arguement, you have never bothered to listen and it notice that there is a lot of difference of opinion on what you call the "left". You think Bill Clinton is a leftist or at least you say so. You wouldn';t nknow a lestist if you found one under your bed!


          <You guys are saying the same thing - sort of - except that her in this tribe I feel like the oppressed moinority where you feel that way other places. >
          That's no broad brush, Cliff. That is pure malicious crap. Are you lonely?
          • Unsu...
             
            *******Pure Straw.***********
            Opinions may vary. That is yours.

            *******Typical "conservative" place to hide in an arguement, you have never bothered to listen and it notice that there is a lot of difference of opinion on what you call the "left". ************
            You mean that many here aren't insisting tthat the administration is not in fact not telling them everyting?? Really ??
            Really??


            ********You think Bill Clinton is a leftist or at least you say so.*********
            How do you know what I think of willie??

            ********You wouldn';t nknow a lestist if you found one under your bed!************
            Tough guys don't talk tough.


            ***********That's no broad brush, Cliff. That is pure malicious crap. ********
            You mean that many here aren't insisting tthat the administration is not in fact not telling them everyting?? Really ??
            Really??

            ********Are you lonely?*********
            Are you making a proposal?
  • Okay Cliffie, if the Prez had nothing to hide about his frequent encounters with a criminal lobbyist, why did he lie so much about it?
    • Unsu...
       
      ****** if the Prez had nothing to hide about his frequent encounters with a criminal lobbyist, why did he lie so much about it?******

      Well as I recall heis notion of how many times they met appears to be far fewer than demonstrable encounters.

      I can't know how many of those encounters were such that one would recall the people present such as dinners etc. I have no clue.
      I can offer this: This president likel to run things like one migfht run a manufacturing corporation. As such he does things that make me crazy such as his "my way or the highway" attitude toward dissent. He has an absolute inability to let anyone see what he must see as a "chink in his armor" which results in him being incapable of admitting error publicly. And he tends to be a little bit tyrranical.
      So given his personality it's not surprising that he'd pull a Bart Simpson and forget that fact checking is but an electron away.

      Why would he lie? Asusming he was aware of falsehood ( an assumption one must make to use the word "lie) it's possible he might see it as merely distancing himself, or he may think that he really only met the guy a few times and blurted out a number, or he may have just reacted in a defensive manner.
      I can't guess why he said what he said. He may in fact have lied deliberately and willfully. I don't know.



      • Unsu...
         
        Cliff,

        You may not know of the number of encounters you've had with various people, but then again you are not under a microscope all the time and expected to be accountable to the extent that a president is, and you also don't have secret service and an administration accounting for your interactions either. Regardless of who the president is, being aware of the implications of associations is a detail that is not taken lightly. So I don't really see the excuse that President Bush doesn't remember that he met with Jack Abramoff who donated $100,000 to his re-election campaign as justifiable.

        Also, I've read recently of lobby activity/involvement between Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff
      • Unsu...
         
        Cliff,

        The president does not run the country like a manufacturing organization, he runs it like a convenience store: low wages, mismanagement, high gas prices, poor service, no regard for what anyone says, and no accountability. All sales are final!!! Oh, and yes, if you don't like it, you can hit the highway.

        Why would the President lie about Jack Abramoff? Well, let's give your view the benefit of the doubt, that their association is just another acquaintence. The fact that Jack Abramoff has been connected with Tom Delay who was Majority Leader of the House, Bob Ney from Ohio, ...well read below and you'll get the idea of where I'm coming from. People that do the amount of work that Abramoff has done for the Republican Party are known, they are not simply seen as some guy who looks familiar.

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

        Abramoff was a top lobbyist for the Preston Gates & Ellis and Greenberg Traurig firms (see Team Abramoff) and a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, and Toward Tradition, a religious right organization, during his criminal enterprise. He was College Republican National Committee National Chairman from 1981 to 1985. He was a founding member of the International Freedom Foundation, an "anti-communist think tank" which operated from 1986 to 1993.

        The monetary influence of Jack Abramoff was substantial. Abramoff was associated with Tom DeLay's and Grover Norquist's K Street Project to bring Republican dominance to Washington lobbying. [3] From 2000 to 2006, he personally donated money to campaign funds and Leadership PACs of numerous Republican candidates for Congress. [4] Under his guidance, his Indian tribe clients loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party, giving Republicans two-thirds of the $2.9 million they donated to federal candidates since 2001. [5] He raised $100,000 for the reelection of George W. Bush, making him a Bush Pioneer. Abramoff and his wife gave $10,000 to the Bush-Cheney Recount Fund, shortly before Abramoff joined Greenberg Traurig, which forgave over $314,000 in legal fees incurred by the Bush Campaign in the 2000 Florida election recount. [6]

        Abramoff ran for election as chairman of the College Republican National Committee (CRNC). After a campaign managed by Grover Norquist which cost over $10,000, Abramoff won the election after the chief competitor, Amy Moritz (who later, as Amy Ridenour, became a founding director of the National Center for Public Policy Research, and was involved in several trips funded by Jack Abramoff), was convinced to drop out. Abramoff "changed the direction of the committee and made it more activist and conservative than ever before," notes the CRNC. "It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left," Abramoff was quoted as saying in the group's 1983 annual report, "our job is to remove them from power permanently." [8]

        Norquist served as executive director of the committee under Abramoff. Abramoff later recruited Ralph Reed, a former president of the University of Georgia College Republicans chapter, as an unpaid intern. Reed, still a young student, was invited to sleep on Abramoff’s couch. According to Reed's book Active Faith, Reed also introduced Abramoff to his future wife, Pam Alexander.

        At the CRNC, Abramoff, Norquist and Reed formed what was known as the "Abramoff-Norquist-Reed triumvirate." After Abramoff's election, the trio purged "dissidents" and re-wrote the CRNC's bylaws to consolidate their control over the organization. According to Gang of Five (p. 142), Reed was the "hatchet man" and "carried out Abramoff-Norquist orders with ruthless efficiency, not bothering to hide his fingerprints."

        In 1985, Abramoff joined Citizens for America, a pro-Reagan group that helped Oliver North build support for the Nicaraguan contras. Citizens for America staged an unprecedented meeting of anti-Communist rebel leaders known as the Democratic International in Jamba, Angola. This conference included leaders of the Mujahedeen from Afghanistan, UNITA from Angola, the Contras from Nicaragua, and opposition groups from Laos. Out of this largely ceremonial conference came the International Freedom Foundation. Abramoff helped to organize, and also attended the conference.

        On January 8, 2001, Abramoff left Preston Gates to join the Government Relations division of the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, which once described him as "directly involved in the Republican party and conservative movement leadership structures" and "one of the leading fund raisers for the party and its congressional candidates." With the move to Greenberg Traurig Abramoff took as much as $6 million dollars worth of client "work" from his old firm, including the Marianas Islands account. When asked in an interview why he moved to Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff replied "they have a dominant presence … This move is an excellent opportunity for me and my clients with the new Administration."[citation needed] At Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff recruited a team of lobbyists known familiarly as "Team Abramoff". The team included many of his former employees from Preston Gates and former senior staffers of members of Congress.

        Jack Abramoff was a member of the Bush Administration's 2001 Transition Advisory Team assigned to the Department of the Interior.[28] Abramoff befriended the incoming Deputy Secretary of the Interior, J. Steven Griles.

        In the first 10 months of 2001, the Abramoff lobbying team logged almost 200 contacts with the new Administration.[28] He may have used these senior level contacts to assist in his lobbying for Indian tribes concerning tribal gaming. The Department of the Interior has Federal regulatory authority over tribal affairs such as tribal recognition and gaming. From 2000 to 2003, six Indian tribes paid Abramoff over $80 million in lobbying fees.[29]

        The Department of the Interior Office of Insular Affairs has authority over policy and grants to US Territories such as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).[30] This may have assisted him in lobbying for textile interests in the islands. U.S. Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) and U.S. Rep and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay also heavily lobbied the CNMI for opposing the minimum wage.[31][32]

        According to an article published in the New York Times on November 10, 2005, Abramoff asked for $9 million in 2003 from the president of the African nation of Gabon, Omar Bongo to arrange a meeting with President Bush and directed his fees to an Abramoff-controlled lobbying firm, GrassRoots Interactive.[33] Bongo did meet with President Bush in the Oval Office on May 26, 2004.[33] There has been no evidence in the public record that Abramoff had any role in organizing the meeting or that he received any money or had a signed contract with Gabon.[33]

        White House and State Department officials described Mr. Bush's meeting with President Bongo, whose government is regularly accused by the United States of human rights abuses, as routine.[33] The officials said they knew of no involvement by Mr. Abramoff in the arrangements. Officials at Gabon's embassy in Washington did not respond to written questions.[33]

        Susan Ralston, Special Assistant to the President and Assistant to the Senior Advisor Karl Rove since 2001, previously worked as an administrative assistant for both Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed.[29][34]

        According to former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, Abramoff was paid $1.2 million to arrange a meeting between Mahathir and president George W. Bush, allegedly at the direction of the Heritage Foundation. Mahathir insisted that someone unknown to him had paid for the meeting.[35]

        On May 9, 2001, Chief Raul Garza of the Kickapoo tribe of Texas met with President Bush, with Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist in attendance. Abramoff was identified in the background of a photo taken at the meeting.[36] Days before the meeting, the tribe paid $25,000 to Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform at Abramoff's direction. According to the organization's communications director, John Kartch, the meeting was one of several gatherings with President Bush sponsored by ATR. On the same day, the chief of the Louisiana Coushattas also attended an ATR-sponsored gathering with President Bush. The Coushattas also gave $25,000 to ATR soon before the event.

        The details of the Kickapoo meeting and a letter dated May 10, 2001 from ATR thanking the Kickapoos for their contribution were revealed to the New York Times in 2006 by former council elder Isidro Garza, who with Raul Garza (no relation), is under indictment in Texas for embezzling tribal money. According to Isidro Garza, Abramoff did not say the donation was required to meet the president; the White House denied any knowledge of the transaction.[37]

        Other photos have surfaced of Jack Abramoff and President Bush meeting at the White House and Oval Office on either December 22 or 23, 2002. The photos were found on a site that published many pictures of governmental events, ReflectionsOrders.com. The owner of the site removed the photos almost immediately when the presence of Abramoff and Bush together was discovered. Some internet users located the photos and preserved copies of some of them.[38] The owner of the site gave thousands of dollars to the Bush campaign and Republican National Committee, according to public FEC contribution records.[39]
        [edit]

        This stuff is so easy to find. I'm not suggesting Bush is guilty of anything relating to Abramoff, but let's be honest, if the President really didn't know Abramoff in detail then he should have. This guy committed himself to Republican causes, raised funds, delivered results, and got out of hand. Does that mean the president should be connected to Abramoff's crimes? I don't think so, but he makes himself appear evasive by denying what is pretty obvious.

        I wonder if in someways Bush relied on Abramoff
  • Unsu...
     
    Cliff,

    Do you wonder why President Bush has denied knowing Jack Abramoff? I'm not suggesting that Bush is guilty of anything connected with Abramoff's crimes, but didn't he realize that there would be a trail of evidence putting them together? Again, I'm not saying Bush is guilty, just that his denials do offer some questions or thoughts that he is possibly hiding something.

    And when you say that "leftists are all a twitter" I wonder who you are really speaking of, because our president is not in my estimation a conservative at all. He has grown the government and he has spent several hundred billion on the war against terrorism.

    What part of the Bush administration prosecuted any of the people you've mentioned? Did President Bush do or sign anything requesting either an investigation or prosecutorial hearings? And regarding Ken Lay, you can't have it both ways. on the one hand you seem to assert that the Bush administration prosecuted in a positive light, then you say how Ken Lay was prosecuted to the point of death. Ken Lay is not a victim, the people who he violated are victims, so I don't really feel sad for him. I'm sure if your retirement fund was lost do to the greed of a few that you'd want justice.

    Bernie Ebbers is no victim, he is a criminal, and having a heart condition does not suggest that anyone should feel sympathy for him. He is a criminal.

    You're not making a very strong case here. You miss on just about everything you say, especially in suggesting that the Bush Administration has prosecuted criminals. Let's be honest, the Bush Administration is responsible for holding how many prisoners without charging them with any crimes? This is an administration that created a Patriot Act that directly impinges our rights under the U.S. Constitution.
    • Unsu...
       
      *******Do you wonder why President Bush has denied knowing Jack Abramoff? ****
      Yah See my reply to Kelly.

      ********I'm not suggesting that Bush is guilty of anything connected with Abramoff's crimes, but didn't he realize that there would be a trail of evidence putting them together?******
      Only after the fact of an investigation could this be possible. And even then GW tends to be a very loyal friend.

      *******that his denials do offer some questions or thoughts that he is possibly hiding something. *************
      Mayber hiding the fact that he has been in the company of the man whose morals may have suddenly shown to be troubling? I don’t know but I don’t see it as suggestive of any criminality.



      And when you say that "leftists are all a twitter" I wonder who you are really speaking of, because our president is not in my estimation a conservative at all. He has grown the government and he has spent several hundred billion on the war against terrorism.

      *******What part of the Bush administration prosecuted any of the people you've mentioned?********
      DOJ Under the AG;s office.
      The same DOJ that is currently prosecuting people and successfully imprisoning them for nothing more than Cartoons. Japanese Anime.

      ******Did President Bush do or sign anything requesting either an investigation or prosecutorial hearings?*********

      Yes. He selects and appoints. The AG is a presidential appointment. The DOJ gets it’s tone and timbre from the President. IT may even get direct marching orders. This is true in every AGs office throughout the land. The Governor appoints state AGs and they do pretty much as the Governor requests so long as it’s not criminal or seriously tortious.


      *******And regarding Ken Lay, you can't have it both ways.******
      Yes I can.

      ******** on the one hand you seem to assert that the Bush administration prosecuted in a positive light, then you say how Ken Lay was prosecuted to the point of death. Ken Lay is not a victim, the people who he violated are victims, so I don't really feel sad for him.******

      Who said Lay was a victim?? I said he was prosecuted to death. The man had a heart attack under the strain. My points is that Lay wasn’t getting any breaks in fact he was being made an example.

      ********Bernie Ebbers is no victim, *******

      Same as to him. I never petitioned for sympathy for these people. I am pointing out the strenuousness with which the AGs guys went after them.



      ******the Bush Administration is responsible for holding how many prisoners without charging them with any crimes?*********

      I can’t think of one single constitutional right to which any of those people in Gitmo are entitled. Not one. The rights to know the charges, to have notice of the charges, and to a speedy trial, and be represented by counsel are all rights under the 6th and14th amendments they are due process rights. To benefit from them you must be within the borders of the USA or one of it’s territories. Gitmo is in Cuba. We are tenants leasing it from the Cuban government. Neither are they entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention as their nation sponsor states are not signatories of the convention.

      ****** This is an administration that created a Patriot Act that directly impinges our rights under the U.S. Constitution.*******
      That is an assertion many make. The vast majority of them don’t understand why they say it as they are not constitutional scholars. They are merely repeating what someone else told them.
      • Unsu...
         
        ******Did President Bush do or sign anything requesting either an investigation or prosecutorial hearings?*********

        Yes. He selects and appoints. The AG is a presidential appointment. The DOJ gets it’s tone and timbre from the President. IT may even get direct marching orders. This is true in every AGs office throughout the land. The Governor appoints state AGs and they do pretty much as the Governor requests so long as it’s not criminal or seriously tortious.

        So the answer is no, he did nothing and is not responsible for anything more than appointing an AG, who actually recused himself from the Enron probe back in 2002, which was conducted by the SEC, not the Bush Administration. Ashcroft recused himself, removing himself from any role in the ensuing prosecutorial process.

        According to the Center for Public Integrity, Ashcroft received nearly $61,000 from Enron executives and the company's political action committee, including $25,000 from Lay.

        In a statement, the department said Ashcroft and his chief of staff, David Ayres, recused themselves "in all matters arising out of allegations of misconduct by Enron Corporation due to the totality of the circumstances of the relationship between Enron and the attorney general."

        The statement continued: "The attorney general has not been involved in any aspect of initiating or conducting any investigation involving Enron. Any and all responsibilities that would be exercised by the attorney general with regard to any such matters will be handled by the deputy attorney general."

        archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLP...ush.enron/

        Do your homework Cliff, you're hanging yourself out to dry here.
        • Unsu...
           
          *******So the answer is no, he did nothing*********
          Absolutely wrong. Absent the President's affirmative interest the AD's office would have found other things to do. It's not as if there are no federal crimes to prosecute.

          *******According to the Center for Public Integrity, Ashcroft received nearly $61,000 from Enron executives and the company's political action committee, including $25,000 from Lay.*******
          Does that include the Two Million Dollars in 1989 alone that Enron gave to Democrats??
          Anyway what is your point.?? Your argument here is so far off topic I wonder if you aren't trying to start another thread.


          ******In a statement, the department said Ashcroft and his chief of staff, David Ayres, recused themselves "in all matters arising out of allegations of misconduct by Enron Corporation due to the totality of the circumstances of the relationship between Enron and the attorney general."
          The statement continued: "The attorney general has not been involved in any aspect of initiating or conducting any investigation involving Enron. Any and all responsibilities that would be exercised by the attorney general with regard to any such matters will be handled by the deputy attorney general."****************

          Oh yeah sure. The AG himself wasn't doing it. Exacrly who do you imagine the Deputy Attorney's General working for him answer to?

          ************Do your homework Cliff, you're hanging yourself out to dry here.*****************
          Snottyness only serves the snotty one poorly.
      • Unsu...
         
        "*******And regarding Ken Lay, you can't have it both ways.******
        Yes I can.

        ******** on the one hand you seem to assert that the Bush administration prosecuted in a positive light, then you say how Ken Lay was prosecuted to the point of death. Ken Lay is not a victim, the people who he violated are victims, so I don't really feel sad for him.******

        Who said Lay was a victim?? I said he was prosecuted to death. The man had a heart attack under the strain. My points is that Lay wasn’t getting any breaks in fact he was being made an example.

        ********Bernie Ebbers is no victim, *******

        Same as to him. I never petitioned for sympathy for these people. I am pointing out the strenuousness with which the AGs guys went after them.

        Okay Cliff you can have it both ways if that makes you feel better. You can also say that Ken Lay was not a victim even though he was prosecuted to death (your words). And you can say that you aren't asserting that Bernie Ebbers isn't a victim either, that his heart condition is due to the strenuousness of the AGs guys. Do you even know if he had a history of heart troubles previous to this?? And why should his stress be an issue anyways. He was the defendant in a stressful case, and was found guilty, sucks for him that the stress was tough, he shouldn't have done the crime, stealing how much money? $11 Billion. You cry about his stress, he a crook that has caused more stress and pain to his employees, who have lost their retirement funds, their jobs, and for many their futures. You blame the Federal Prosecutors, as if that isn't completely misguided and frivolous.

        What a joke.
      • Unsu...
         
        Cliff,

        Did I mention Gitmo? No, but you did, and those prisoners are entitled rights under the Geneva Conventions which were signed by the U.S. President Bush has chosen to ignore those protections out of inconvenience.
        • Unsu...
           
          No they are not Eric. The Convention states most clearly that to obtain the benefits of the conventions, a soldier's nation must be a signatory.

          • Unsu...
             
            The Bush administration for the first time has acknowledged that all detainees held by the U.S. military are subject to the protections under the Geneva Conventions. The Pentagon detailed the policy in a memo made public on the day the Senate opened hearings on how such detainees should be tried.

            voanews.com/english/arch...-11-voa66.cfm

            Cliff,

            You are blatantly misinformed now. Nothing that you have said has been true. Before you say things, check them out.
            • Unsu...
               
              *****The Bush administration for the first time has acknowledged that all detainees held by the U.S. military are subject to the protections under the Geneva Conventions. The Pentagon detailed the policy in a memo made public on the day the Senate opened hearings on how such detainees should be tried. *************

              Absolutely not that the Supreme Court got it entirely wrong and declared it so.
              Whatr's he going to do appeal them?? Ignore them?? It'll have to wair till a wiser court is formed.

              I'm not misinformed I merely don't spell the little things out.
              Maybe I err to greatly giving people credit?

              It was you I believe that began speaking of the Conventions . I could be wrong but I think you spoke of it initially.

          • read:
            the battle for guantanamo
            www.iht.com/articles/200...0913gitmo.php

            even if they aren't protected, they sure as better be treated like they are protected. otherwise, they ain't going to cooperate.
            • Unsu...
               
              www.ppu.org.uk/learn/text...con_sp.html

              Iran has signed
              Iraq has signed
              Afghanistan has signed
              Pakistan has signed
              Syria has signed
              Saudi Arabia has signed
              The U.S. has signed
              Jordan has signed.

              Is there another country that has prisoners at Gitmo or any other U.S. detention facility that might not fall into the purview of the above list?

              Where do you get these ridiculous notions from?
              • Unsu...
                 
                **********Iran has signed
                Iraq has signed
                Afghanistan has signed
                Pakistan has signed
                Syria has signed
                Saudi Arabia has signed
                The U.S. has signed
                Jordan has signed. ****************

                Al-Quaida hasn't signed.
                • <<Al-Quaida hasn't signed.>>

                  Ah Clikfie, how quickly you assume anybody arrested must be guilty. Quite the fascist mindset you have there. As even somebody as ignorant as yourself must know, many people who were held at Gitmo for long periods of time have been released with no charges and no evidence that they ever were affliated with any terrorist group. Do you really, actually believe that anyone ACCUSED of terrorist activity should be stripped of their rights and the protections of international law?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     
                    ******Ah Clikfie, how quickly you assume anybody arrested must be guilty.**********

                    Not assume I simply don't care about them. And I don't trustany plucked from a battle field.

                    **** people who were held at Gitmo for long periods of time have been released with no charges and no evidence that they ever were affliated with any terrorist group.********
                    Yah and they probably gained weight


                    ********Do you really, actually believe that anyone ACCUSED of terrorist activity should be stripped of their rights and the protections of international law?********

                    There is not such thing as international law. They don't have any rights.
                    • Unsu...
                       
                      Cliff,

                      Okay, I give. Why don't they have any rights? This should be good.
                      • Unsu...
                         
                        No constitutional rtighte are available to persons not within the borders of the US or it's territories.
                        No internationally recognized rights under the Geneva Convention as Neither AlQuaida nor the Taliban are recognized nor signatories. These are people who have been caught up by involvement with stateless nationless terrorism.
                        Even the Taliban wasn't a legit government they were invaders from pakistan seeking to set up a psycho version of Islam as a theocracy.

                        Any one who wanted to distance themselves from these people had more opportunity than they needed.


                        If and I stress 'if" the Alquaida and it's clones were to extend Geneva conventions to it's captrives (I'd say then it's reasonable to extend 'em right back.
                        Instead they torture murder and make a spectacle of it.
                        • Unsu...
                           
                          Cliff,

                          You are totally incorrect. Neither the Taliban or Al Qaeda are countries, and these people do have rights as citizens of the countries that they are from. You are making statements that are not based in fact nor based in truth. You are not establishing anything you say, and you do not so much as provide ANY evidence to support your statements.

                          I personally have no idea how you can expect to be taken seriously. There's no international law? www.ohchr.org/english/law/

                          Either you're a terrible liar, or you're really a very lazy person. You don't do any research, and you leave yourself completely vulnerable and exposed for the shortcomings of your statements.
                        • Unsu...
                           
                          Cliff,

                          What do you know about the people around Al Qaeda?? You said they had plenty of opportunity to distance themselves, but how do you know this? Cliff, be accountable and stop making baseless statements. Do some research before you say things. And if you're not going to expect to be exposed as a fraud.

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"