Gonzales and Fitzgerald,
By on Mar 27th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Gonzales and Fitzgerald,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is likely to face questions about the allegedly mediocre status of U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald when he arrives here Tuesday for a scheduled round table discussion and press conference. …
Gonzales is to appear for a round table discussion of the ["Project Safe Childhood" campaign] with Fitzgerald… The mediocre rating has been the subject of much joking among prosecutors, federal agents, defense lawyers and the press in the city, and especially at the building where Fitzgerald has earned accolades for sweeping public corruption investigations.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Go ahead, Fitzgerald — make our day by openly defying the Attorney General — that will do wonders for your PERFORMANCE review.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:55 amGonzales isn’t fit to carry Fitzgerald’s briefcase.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:56 amGonzales calling Fitzgerald “mediocre” should be considered a compliment. After all, Gonzales has had his nose planted up GDumbya’s ass for his entire political career so we all know that he’s a poor judge of character.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:00 pmToo bad it isn’t in a courtroom. Maybe someday.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:00 pmWell, we all know what happens when things get “face to face”
with these turds… Shrinkage!
Check out Jake!
Go ahead, Fitzgerald — make our day…
heh. That’s almost as good as his quote about Bush being heaven sent.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:01 pmJake,
I have some bad news to break to you. Your side is losing. Badly. And it is getting late in the game. It’s the bottom of the ninth, and Gonzo just whiffed at three straight pitches. Rove is up next, then Bush. Don’t you think it’s time to head for the exits?
March 27th, 2007 at 12:02 pmGo ahead, Fitzgerald — make our day by openly defying the Attorney General — that will do wonders for your PERFORMANCE review.
Comment by Jake
Channeling Dirty Harry makes you sound so…well…dirty.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:02 pmAbu Gonzales should worry less about protecting kids from porn and worry more about protecting himself from the truth.
Shit happens, Al, and you’re up to your eyeballs in it right now.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pmplease excuse my behavior, I keep forgetting to take my meds.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:06 pmComment by Jake
Jake once again proves how big an idiot he is.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:07 pmToo bad concepts such as “Rule of Law” are way beyond Jake’s comprehension.
Tom:
Good point — maybe it was a compliment. March 27, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
TSop:
Was the Attorney General spot what was promised to Fitzgerald by Kerry? Sorry that didn’t work out for you.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:12 pmWas the Attorney General spot what was promised to Fitzgerald by Kerry? Sorry that didn’t work out for you.
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Why I do believe that Jake is trying to taunt us!
Tough talk, loser.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:16 pmGo ahead, Fitzgerald — make our day by openly defying the Attorney General — that will do wonders for your PERFORMANCE review.
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Well done, Jake. Spoken like a true Rethug. March in lockstep with the administration, and receive a good performance review. And maybe if you are really lucky, you might even catch a “Heckuva job!” from GWB himself.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:18 pmpgw posted catching Jake in a lie.
Thought everyone should see it here in case they missed it in the other thread.
Did you so note every time some liberal here called
the Attorney General †Speedy Gonzales� I didn’t
think so. Since I have admitted to that, yes, I did
vote for JFK and, being Catholic myself, I’ve got
plenty of funny Catholic jokes.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:18 pmâ€
“CONservative:
Southern Baptist here too — we are going to have to
agree to disagree that Bush is anywhere close to a
KING though (for instance, we know, worse case
scenario, his term ends January 20, 2009 ; )
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 4:33 pmâ€
Jake you have discredited yourself.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:20 pmYou have no honor.
You are now a proven liar.
Gonzales meet Real Man….Fitzgerald meet Pathetic Sack of Shit
March 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pm# 6 —-Perfectly said—-truth
March 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pmAnother day of the discredited Jake hijacking all the threads and the intelligentsia chasing after him playing kick the can thinking that it makes them look like Pele.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:31 pmWouldn’t it be great if Fitzgerald replaced Gonzo? Fitzgerald certainly seems to have a lot more respect and credibility than Gonzo does!
March 27th, 2007 at 12:31 pmWill Alberto VO5 shine Fitz’s shoes???
March 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pmShootout at the Not-OK Corral?
March 27th, 2007 at 12:36 pm…of course they’ll be…
…civil…
March 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pmbluefish:
I am registered Independent, so I could care less what GWB thinks of me.
P.S. I am NOT a Catholic (if anyone not of the “Ignore List” has a question about that, plese let me know).
March 27th, 2007 at 12:38 pmGonzales PR Strategy: I’m Going To Stay Focused On Our Kids
He couldn’t take care of his own sister yet we have .. “I’m Going To Stay Focused On Our Kids” yeah ok…
Alberto Gonzales’ sudden moment in the unflattering spotlight has prompted a new look at his background.
http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/34944.html
March 27th, 2007 at 12:38 pmAnother day of the discredited Jake hijacking all the threads and the intelligentsia chasing after him playing kick the can thinking that it makes them look like Pele.
Comment by Tuber — March 27, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
More presumption from Tuber. Do you have any idea why Jake keeps posting the same discredited ideas over and over? It is a deliberate and effective strategy. Many people visit here to read a few posts, then leave. Jake and his ilk carpet bomb this site with talking points, knowing that some casual visitors will see the lie, but miss the rebuttals. There are several commenters here doing a wonderful job of rebutting Jake with clearly thought out replies and links to supporting documents. They should be applauded, not criticized.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:38 pmKeith Oberman had a comment on Gonzo’s botched interview over the USA scandel.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pm“That there sounded like a really bright seven-year-old, thinking he’s pulled one over on the adults about the broken cookie jar while he’s got the cookies in his back pocket.”
Awesome. Questions for Gonzo. For a quick reminder on Gonzo’s question answering style, might I remind you all of one of his greatest hits.
SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.
GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.
GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: When did you last read the case?
GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.
SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.
GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.†It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —
SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
GONZALES: Um.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pmbluefish:
Are you saying that Gonzales stopped after “um”? I will note there was no question pending either.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pmGONZALES: Um.
Comment by bluefish
Smartest thing he ever said.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:49 pm#24-Verbakint,
I respectfully disagree. Jake (who I still believe is MA) is the most prolific commenter on TP currently. It provokes by pushing the easy buttons and then guides everyone down a path of deception and diversion until the conversation leads to a discussion about religion or Clinton. Same thing every time. Just like MA used to do.
Ignore it. Let it stand upon the merits of its own asinine assertions and “List of Ignorance”. It will disappear into the irrelevance from which it came and maybe, just maybe, we can actually discuss a topic with intelligence and not just mindless insults.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pmGonzales is correct BTW. The Constitution does not provide an explict grant of habeas corpus — at least not as explict as, say, the right to keep and bear arms ; )
March 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pmjake is one of those catholic baptists youve heard tell about.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:51 pmFor the record, I have never posted under a different name here and I am not a Catholic — that was the fake Jake.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:56 pmI would ask Jake how his dead kid was, but he’s on my Ignore List.
I would LOVE to see Fitzgerald grilling Gonzalito in a courtroom! Oh, frabjous day!
March 27th, 2007 at 12:59 pmBut how can we believe either Jake? Once you have a fake whoever, how do u=you know which is which anymore? They both sound crazy to me.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:01 pmJake sez:
LIAR>
It’s easy enough to differentiate your writing style from the ‘fake’ Jake. Denying the authenticity of the posts pgw dredged up only confirms your status as a pathological liar and a mendacious little troll.
Once again, Shakey, your credibility account is seriously overdrawn.
TP admins, I’d like to take this opportunity to yet again make the case for user registration here at Think Progress. Not only will it dissuade trollish behaviour by stopping namejacking, but it will also deny lying trolls like Jake the shelter of a ‘well, that wasn’t me…I was namejacked’ excuse every time he’s caught in a lie.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:02 pmIt doesn’t matter to me what anyone on the “Ignore List” thinks — anyone else who still has a question about this, let me know.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:13 pmTuber, Jake is not MA. Jake is Jake, and he is very consistent in what he writes and in his general approach. MA could never show a tenth of the message discipline shown by Jake.
By all means ignore Jake if you like. But don’t expect other people to ignore him.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pmGonzales interview on NBC was so sad. Al sound like a 5 year old trying to get out of the lie even using the race card for defense. David Iglesias and John McKay sound more like educated lawyers then Al. Al Gonzales is out of Fitzgerald’s league. Fitzgerald will do to him what he did to Ted Wells in the court room of the Libby trial. That old saying is true the Boss is an idiot but his workers make him look good because they are smart. Fitzgerald had to fight to get what he wanted in the Libby trial not from the court or the Defense but from the Attorney General and the White House. If Fitzgerald didn’t stick to his guns Libby would have never gone to trial for lying under oath. As we have seen that’s common with Gonzales and others in the White House. Gonzales should lawyer up if he faces Pat Fitzgerald because he will need an educated lawyer. Maybe Gonzales could go to a real smart lawyer like David Iglesias to represent him.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pmComment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Jake – textually the right to keep and bare arms is no more explicit than the right to habeus.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed”
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended”
Gramatically those two sentences are almost indistinguishable except for the fact that the suspension of habeus limitation does not clarify citizen v. non-citizen while the 2nd amendment makes it clear the right extends to all people, not just citizens. Also of note is that the habeus clause is in the section on limitation of Congress’s power, making the broad reading of the clause more consistent with the framer’s intentions.
So, to be consistent, I would say you either have to acknowledge that, at the very least, all citizens, if not all people in the country, have a right to habeus, or you have to acknowledge there is no affirmative grant of the right to bare arms.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:25 pmJake sez:
Obviously it does, Shakey, else you wouldn’t have bothered to write the above, would you?
Sheesh…you really are too easy.
Yes, by all means. We’ll see how many posters take you up on your generous offer…and more importantly, how many of them are consigned to The List â„¢ once you find you can’t keep up with them in an honest debate.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:32 pmKactionJ:
Quote both ENTIRE sentences and tell me they are still almost indistinguishable.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:36 pmFor the record, the ONLY ways one gets on the “Ignore List” is to request inclusion (there is no “form” so just ask), refuse to answer my questions, or resort to personal attacks against me. No one has ever been placed on the “Ignore List” for asking questions in a civil manner. However, since I show common courtesy, I expect the same in return.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:39 pmComment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Liar.
(But we all know that now, don’t we?)
March 27th, 2007 at 1:42 pmUm, sure Jake… it doesn’t help your argument in the slightest, but ok.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed.”
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public
safety may require it.”
Notice that now the right to bear arms is phrased in terms of maintaining a militia, thus cutting against the argument that all individuals have the right to bear arms outside of a militia.
As for habeas, the framers have added two exceptions when Congress may suspend habeas. Of course, when exemptions like this are explicit they tend to be interpreted as exclusive. Since we have neither been invaded, nor is there an ongoing revolution of the type contemplated by the framers, neither of those exemptions would sem to apply. The full quotes do not add any more to the argument I posited to you earlier, either both are explicit grants, or neither are.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:48 pmHe couldn’t take care of his own sister yet we have .. “I’m Going To Stay Focused On Our Kids†yeah ok…
Comment by mrJJ — March 27, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Project Safe for Children is not about keeping kids safe. Don’t be silly. It’s about getting kids, young adults, pedophiles, who are in trouble out of jail free.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pmThat what his record is drunk driving, no problem, possession with intent to deliver, it’s all good. So when he talks about children what kind of crimes is he going to allow no.
*D I S C L A I M E R*
Was the Attorney General spot what was promised to Fitzgerald by Kerry? Sorry that didn’t work out for you.
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
For all readers new to this post, pleae note that Jake is a known prevarictor of the highest order.
He tolls this site spewing lies fed to him from the Administration in the style of Karl Rove.
Because this is a Progressive site he is allowed to post here but his opinions are loaded with lies, bias and misrepresentations of the facts. If you should choose to read posts by this person please keep this in mind.
Thank you.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pmKactionJ:
But you are reading the clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” as dependent to “well regulated Militia” — I read it as independent, sort of a list, if you like, of what is NECESSARY to the security of a
free State — luckily for me, I have a few recent court decisions holding it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to back up my reading : )
Let me know if you still don’t understand how TWO independent clauses are not different than “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (if it exists) shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.†Thanks for quoting them, as I was too busy on the other threads to look both up in a hurry.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pmComment by VerbalKint — March 27, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Great point. Because we agree that it is unhealthy to let Jake’s lies go uncontested. I have posted a disclaimer to newbies and perhaps others need to keep this or a similar disclaimer, perhaps shorter, so that we can notate what Jakes intentions are without giving him too much attention.
Just a thought. Although fighting with him can be fun when one is in the mood.
Tuber is sounding a bit like ChildrenofLir from Sunday, don’t you think.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pmP.S. If anyone else has questions about any personal attack that I choose to ignore, please let me know.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:05 pmComment by Jackie Rawlings — March 27, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Jackie – Gonzales sounds VERY intelligent to GW and that’s all that matters in this administration. If somebody is too smart it makes the Prez poopie his pants and start calling for Laura or Babs to come clean him up. If they don’t come immediately he turns into a blithering idiot and that’s when he likes to make new appointments.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pmComment by shane — March 27, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Nice, shane…you should post that on every thread Jake spews his hateful lies over.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pm47. KactionJ:
So is this your first lesson in trying to engage Jake in intelligent discourse?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:17 pmJake sez:
Jake, which version of the Constitution are you looking at? I don’t recall the “(if it exists)” qualifier in Article I, section 9.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:17 pmJake, I’m afraid there is no textual basis for your argument that the two “clauses are independent. I’m perfectly willing to admit that any sensible reading of the 2nd amendment is that it is an individual right. I really have no issue with that interpretation, but to suggest that the clauses are independent overlooks fundamental grammer rules.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed”
The only was thats a list is if the sentence “A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed” makes sense. I think we can agree it doesn’t. You cannot infringe a Militia, a linguistic point I’m quite sure the drafters would have caught. All of that is besides the point however, because even if it is a list, then the grant of the right to bear arms becomes the excerpt I posted earlier which IS indistinguishable from the habeas clause.
As for the court cases, like I said, I agree that the most sensible reading is that it is an individual right, but I might point out that NO supreme court cases has ever been decided on 2nd amendment grounds. Some justices (Thomas) have brought it up, but it has never been the basis for a majority opinion.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:17 pmDo you have any idea why Jake keeps posting the same discredited ideas over and over? It is a deliberate and effective strategy. Many people visit here to read a few posts, then leave…..
Comment by VerbalKint — March 27, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
I am one of those who usually justs reads through the comments. I just have to ask this question and I will try to be as civil as I possibly can.
Jake,
Why do you even bother to continue commenting? You have been proven to be a fraud, hypocrite and phony.
I wonder if my first try will get me on the ignore list? I can only hope….
I hope Gonzales squirms like the worm he is when he is face to face with Fitzgerald.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:29 pm47. KactionJ:
So is this your first lesson in trying to engage Jake in intelligent discourse?
Comment by shane
I’ll admit, it is the first time I’ve ever pointed out that he has made an error. I normally avoid posting, though I visit the site every day, because I don’t usually feel the need to argue with opinions. As regards this discussion however, too many in the media with no relevant background have been making the same argument as Jake. What’s especially egregious is that normally conservatives are making the argument, and it runs contrary to conservative judicial philosophy.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:31 pmI’d like to know what cases the “loyal Bushies” have pursued or not pursued against Democrat officials or Republican officials. Like who’s holding up the DeLay case in Texas? What happened to the investigation into Senator Frist’s “blind trust” escapade? Why did federal prosecutors go after those two Texas border agents for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler? Why did they give him immunity to prosecute those border agents (a special deal with Mexico’s President?)? It would be interesting to find out what kind of cases the loyal Bushies have been busy doing since Alberto became Attorney General! Come on investigative reporters, get investigating!
March 27th, 2007 at 2:33 pmSo let me get this straight, about this whole who gets habeas corpus argument that Abu is stating. There is nothing in the Constitution granting anyone habeas corpus, so there no inherent right to have habeas corpus, but once you get it, it can only be taken away in war or insurection.
So what I like to do is apply the same “logic” that Abu used on the habeas corpus on the good old 2nd amendment.
See, nowhere in the 2nd amendment do I see a right to actually purchase arms. Sure, once you have them, you certainly allowed to keep and bare them. But apparently, if the government wanted too and using Abu “reasoning”, it could prevent you from acquiring ownership of a gun.
Fascinating. I never knew.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pmKactionJ (and now JRoyale joins the 2nd Amendment fray):
We’ll just have to wait and see what the conservative ROBERTS Court has to say bout that, then ; )
trouble_in_paradise:
I post mainly for the lurkers. I do disagree that I have been proven to be a fraud, hypocrite and phony, but perhaps you can point to where you think I have, and I will clear that up for you. The only way your “first try” can get you on the “Ignore List” is to engage in egregious personal attacks against me. For now, I will interpret your initial post as asking about the personal attacks rather than directly participating in said attacks. Unless you want to be on the “Ignore List”? Otherwise. as long as you do not engage in same. and answer my questions, I will gladly return the same courtesy.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — March 27, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Feel free to use this Disclaimer or make one of your own. Many of us need to be vigilant in this task.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:46 pmComment by KactionJ — March 27, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Your post #54 explained it as succinctly as possible. And yet Jake will come back with another interpretation of the facts. But since you read here frequently you already know why so many of us get so frustrated.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:50 pmLet me know, KactionJ (or anyone else NOT on the “Ignore List” for personal attacks against me when I don’t do the same and/or refusing to answer my questions back when I answered all of their questions), of you have any other questions.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pmJake sez:
Because all the posters are on his infantile “ignore list”. Jake only feels comfortable addressing individuals who, by definition, don’t reply.
“Disagree” all you like, Jake, but it’s a matter of public record now. You can thank pgw for that.
Your posts (and they are all your posts, your histrionics notwithstanding), speak quite eloquently for themselves.
Indeed…it takes a few repititions of a question Jake is unable to answer before he realizes you’re not going to let it go, and puts you on The List â„¢.
What’s the matter, Jakers? Is The List â„¢ getting too long, or is the list of people you’re still not afraid to address over here getting too short?
It’s simply precious how Shakey keeps waving that around like it’s some kind of threat, especially considering the number of people that have answered that question with an enthusiastic “YES!”. ^_^
March 27th, 2007 at 3:02 pmFor now, I will interpret your initial post as asking about the personal attacks rather than directly participating in said attacks.
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Actually, I thought my question was right to the point. I don’t recall asking you about the personal attacks, I asked you why you continue to post when you have been proven to be fraud, hypocrite and phony (which are polite words for Liar see post # 35).
March 27th, 2007 at 3:10 pmAnyone else who thinks a fake Jake post is genuine should feel free to ask me to clarify. For the record, only five posters have been placed on the “Ignore List” per their request (Keith, Quadrajet, Terry the Turtle, bob not the hacker, And You Thought . . .). Everyone else on the “Ignore List” is there because he / she engaged in personal attacks against me or refused to answer my questions (for instance, in the tobacco thread below, TripMaster Monkey refused to answer how the outcome of that trial would have been different).
March 27th, 2007 at 3:12 pmtrouble_in_paradise:
I am not a Catholic; therefore, I am not lying about that.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pmComment by Jackie Rawlings #38
Jackie,
Did you hear the one about the lead U.S. Attorney on the tobacco companies’ prosecution…
…who while being “interrogated” on the right wing Fox Propagandist network…
…maintained that she (a prosecutor in the midst of securing the LARGEST punitive settlement in HISTORY)…
…was undercut by Gonzales’ DOJ at EVERY turn once it was common knowledge…
…that she had the goods against the criminal tobacco companies…
…to secure a verdict with a punitive settlement in the $130 BILLION dollar range…
…she was ORDERED to ask for ONLY $10 BILLION, her summation was re-written by DOJ biggies and foisted upon her…
…AND for the creme-de-la-creme’ ????
…she said that SHE had NEVER MET Attorney General Gonzales…
…a Justice Dept. Prosecutor handling arguably the most important prosecution in U.S. HISTORY…
…was TOTALLY ignored by her BOSS!
…If THAT doesn’t smack of collusion (by Abu and Bushites with Big tobacco)…
…I don’t know what does…
March 27th, 2007 at 3:18 pmJake sez:
What Jake’s not telling you, TIP, is that Jake has identified himself as a Baptist and a Catholic on two separate occasions.
So…either he’s actually a Bap-Catholic-Tist, or he’s a liar.
No appeals to outside sources need be made. Jake stands convicted on the basis of his own irreconcilable statements.
(Note: At this point, Jake will claim that the post where he claims to be a Catholic is a namejacking. This is just another pernicious lie. Read all his posts on that thread…you’ll see that the writing style is quite consistent, as well as being consistent with the rest of his posts at this site.)
March 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pmJake sez:
I can only assume you’re referring to this thread, Jake, since you seem unable to substantiate your claims with links.
Please point out the post where you asked me “how the outcome of that trial would have been different”.
I’ll wait…
…
Now that you’re back with nothing to show, perhaps you’ll retract your false accusations…although I know better than to give you that much credit.
While we’re talking about unanswered questions, let’s talk about my question, that you so studiously ignored.
I’ll post it again, for everyone’s benefit.
Two things:
One: Jake ignored me at first, and then claimed to have posted a response, which was subsequently ‘disappeared’ by the TP editors. I replied that this was rather unlikely, and, even if it were true, why didn’t he simply post the answer again? After all, Jake seems to pride himself upon answering questions…he asks often enough if anyone has any for him…
Two: This post occurred on the same day as the tobacco thread Jake mentioned earlier. Since his stated reason for placing me on the “ignore list” was that I didn’t answer a question he never asked, and since I have proof that I asked him a question he subsequently deliberately evaded, it seems overwhelmingly likely that I’m actually on the “ignore list” because Jake is afraid to debate further with me.
TIP and others, I hope this clears up any lingering confusion on this issue.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pmFITZY BITCH-SLAPS GONZO THE CLOWN IN PUBLIC!!!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:17 pm“TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE IT!!!!” ROARED Fitzgerald AS HIS IRISH IRE ROSE AT THE SLIMY, SWARMY LITTLE GREASER and Uriah Heepish Alberto VO5 GONZOales the CLOWN, ILLEGAL AND LAWLESS TOADY OF Bushland Uber Allies AND PERSONAL BUTT-BOY OF THE NAZI-FASCIST DESPOT King George CHIMPya W. Bush The TURD(III)!!!!! GONZO WAS RECENTLY PROMOTED TO THE EXALTED TITLE OF “COURT JESTER”, WHICH IS A STEP ABOVE HIS CURRENT AND ENDANGERED POSITION OF Inquisitor General of the IN-Justice Department, THE FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHICH GAINED THE PREFIX “IN-” UNDER THE TENURES OF John Ashcroft and NOW, GONZO THE CLOWN!!!!!
I’m surprised they even gave him a mediocre grade. If he wasn’t so high profile, they would’ve fired him too.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:49 pmFITZGERALD FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL
March 28th, 2007 at 12:00 amFITZGERALD FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL
FITZGERALD FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL
Free Porn Free Cartoon Pokemon Porn 100 Free Porn
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 2:05 pmFree Porn Free Full Length Porn Movies Free Full Length Porn Movies
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 4:24 amFree Porn Free Gay Porn Free Porn Vids
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 9:34 amKds Bbs Pics Underage Porn Kid Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 4:21 pm