Was U.S. Attorney Fired For Investigating Republican Congressman?
Was U.S. Attorney Fired For Investigating Republican Congressman?
New evidence is emerging that the Justice Department fired the U.S. attorney in Arizona, Paul Charlton, for investigating a land deal involving Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ).
Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Charlton was fired because of “his poor judgment in pushing forward a recommendation on a death penalty case.” But as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pointed out, this explanation appears to be a “made up reason.” Documents show that even after Charlton was ousted, Justice Department officials were still “trying to settle on a complete explanation” for his firing:
In different drafts of an undated Justice Department memo prepared this year and released Tuesday, some possible reasons for Charlton’s ouster were crossed out, including a reference to obscenity prosecution, and others were added later.
Additionally, two weeks after he was fired in December, Charlton sent an e-mail to the Justice Department asking them how to deal with press questions that his firing was retribution for the Renzi investigation:
No one ever responded to Charlton.
Charlton’s office also received pressure from Renzi’s office on the investigation. A few weeks before the 2006 midterm elections, Renzi’s top aide, Brian Murray, called Charlton’s spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle to inquire about the investigation:
“I called Mr. Hornbuckle seeking information about press accounts which appeared just weeks before Election Day alleging a pending indictment,” Murray said in a statement. “I left him a message asking for information about these allegations, but I was called back and told they would not comment.”
Such calls are highly improper and potentially illegal. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) made similar calls pressuring then-U.S. attorney David Iglesias. The Justice Department fired Iglesias after Domenici took his complaints to Karl Rove and President Bush.
A report in the Wall Street Journal shows Charlton “faced unexpected obstacles in getting needed Justice Department approvals to advance a corruption investigation” against Renzi. While Charlton’s office opened the investigation no later than June 2005, the Justice Department didn’t issue subpoenas for key witnesses until early this year, some 18 months later.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
83 Responses to “Was U.S. Attorney Fired For Investigating Republican Congressman?”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Nothing to see here. Move along.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:38 pmAm I mistaken or does Grover Norquist's K Street Project website share space with various Syrian websites?
http://www.robtex.com/dns/kstreetproject.com.html
April 25th, 2007 at 12:38 pmWas U.S. Attorney Fired For Investigating Republican Congressman?
Simple answer: Yes.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:41 pmCould you imagine the screaming by the rabid-right had Pres. Clinton fired anyone investigating him?
Double standards are typical for the GOP.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:41 pmWhy don't we ask Alberto Gonzales why Charlton was fired?
He was there - I'm sure he'll remember.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:43 pmAgain,
I would love to say I'm outraged and shocked, but I think I'm fresh out of outrage and shock.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:43 pmClinton, Carter, etc.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:45 pmFor the latest news, document dumps, email archives, hearing transcripts and other essential materials in the firings of U.S. attorneys, see:
April 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pm"The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents."
GOP = Snakes in the grass and knuckle dragging morons who make excuses for them.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pm#5 - Lol.
Sad times indeed.
#6 - Indeed.
I think I'm "outraged"-fatigued.
~Sean
April 25th, 2007 at 12:48 pmPure smarminess typical of the Bush administration. Can't the Dems hire any lawyer out there to help them - obviously they are not capable of wrapping up a successful investigation and applying consequences.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:49 pmSo from the title of the thread I get the impression that one again the lunatic left is making up proof-less assumptions to feed their own paranoia.
The Jews were told to get out of the trade centers on 9/11
A missile hit the pentagon not a plane
Bush blew up the dams after Katrina
Evil Genius Rove had Sen. Johnson poisoned to take back the Senate.
. . .
ROTFL
April 25th, 2007 at 12:50 pmSo, what do we have, 2% of the Republican Congress under criminal indictment? I can only imagine what the % would be if we didn't have the most partisan WH/DoJ in our history working overtime to obstruct justice.
Organized crime has morphed into the Republican National Syndicate....can we use RICO statutes to go after them?
April 25th, 2007 at 12:50 pmSo from the title of the thread I get the impression that one again the lunatic left is making up proof-less assumptions to feed their own paranoia.
Comment by Happy Guy — April 25, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Interesting... I get the impression that suspicious facts are being investigated to see if there is some impropriety going on. Tomayto, Tomahto.
But the feeding one's own paranoia is an intriguing angle... ever hear of the psychological concept of "projection"? Google it. You'll be amazed.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:56 pmIMPEACH!
April 25th, 2007 at 12:57 pmOy. Even Dick Cheney looks ill with that creep touching him...
April 25th, 2007 at 12:58 pmDoes Happy Guy do impressions? He's impersonating a logical person so that's a start.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:02 pmHasn't everyone been getting their Redudlican talking points???This story is a "non-starter"(my personal favorite), a 'witchhunt."
April 25th, 2007 at 1:03 pmAncient Chinese proverb: 'To move a mountain, one must begin by carrying small stones'.
Patience, Americans. One stone at a time will soon equal proper consequences for these wolves in red clothing.
Arizona, New Mexico, Arkansas, Minnesota, Utah, California...does anyone see a pattern here?
We'll get them. They must be indicted & tried for such arrogant dismissal of 300 years of democratic principles.
Renzi, you're but a small stone dropping in the pond of life. Important only in the fact that the ripples you cause will trigger the Tsunami that cleanses America of the fetid feces you drop at will.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:04 pm#12 Clueless Guy
You should stay under that rock. You don't seem to be grasping what's going on here. Maybe you will after it's completely unraveled, which is happening at an ever-increasing rate of speed. Notice a lot of Republicans resigning and being investigated lately?
April 25th, 2007 at 1:11 pmHey Happy Guy:
http://www.dccc.org/gopauctionhouse/main.html
Click on your choice of hero and watch the fun. The wheels of justice move very slowly.
Enjoy.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:13 pmI think I’m “outragedâ€-fatigued.
~Sean
Sean, that's what happens when you treat every little political move by the other party as an outrage.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:18 pmDoes any of this shock anyone any more? Its like the Repugnicans have reached a level of deceit that we can now consider normal (and they consider acceptable). What else do they have in their bag of slime?
April 25th, 2007 at 1:18 pmSean, that’s what happens when you treat every little political move by the other party as an outrage. Comment by Cynicon Implant — April 25, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Or when the other party is so corrupt, dishonest and inept that it creates "outrage-fatigue". Sad, you're too st*pid ti distinguish the difference between "political move", and "corruption", but then again, you are republican!
April 25th, 2007 at 1:23 pm#12,
I'd ask you to quit boggarting that joint and to pass it along but from the level of your delusion it appears that someone spiked it with "happy" dust.
Give Betty Ford a call and get yourself straightened out before you harm someone.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:24 pmCynicon Implant,
While I agree with you to some degree regarding the "outrage" comment, I don't find the possible firing of US Attorneys for nothing more than political gain, a "little political move".
If it were reversed, and it was starting to look very much like a Democratic President was firing particular attorneys, only to for political gain, I'm guessing, (while I'm guessing you'll deny it) that you'd be just as upset.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:25 pmCynicon Implant sez:
Well, CI, we wouldn't have to if all their "little political moves" weren't so outrageous.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:28 pmSean, that’s what happens when you treat every little political move by the other party as an outrage.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — April 25, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Hey everything we know we learned from the Republican treatment of Bill Clinton. It's not so much fun for you guys now though, is it?
April 25th, 2007 at 1:28 pmIs the sky blue? Does a bear crap in the woods? Does it snow in Denmark? Was Sadam a dictator? Is the grass green in summer? Is water wet? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a DUCK! http://www.plainnews.blogspot.com
April 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pmI'm sure that Cynicon would want justice to prevail over one party's view. I'm sure Cynicon realizes that the country is best served when all partys work together. Not to have a permanent party rule.
I'm sure he sees there is real trouble here and that the overstepping of the executive branch into the judicial and legislative branches will need to be corrected for the preservation of this country.
I'm sure.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:32 pmWell I guess I'd better not post on this site, they keep screening my comments before they post them. Apparently I'm not nasty enough in my remarks to have my comments posted immediately.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:34 pmhttp://ccoaler.blogspot.com
Rice subpoenaed
April 25th, 2007 at 1:41 pmAnswer: you can take it to the bank!
April 25th, 2007 at 1:57 pmOh come on boys. There are still less investigation than the Clinton Whitehouse had. And with Clinton, his cronies either went to jail, wound up dead or got pardoned. Why were those private FBI files outside the bedroom?
ROTFL
April 25th, 2007 at 2:27 pmCaption:
April 25th, 2007 at 2:41 pm"Isn't that cute, the way they writh and squirm when their heads are under water?"
Was U.S. Attorney Fired For Investigating Republican Congressman?
Ah....duh? YES!
April 25th, 2007 at 3:13 pmOne was fired for failing to indict a Democrat and one was fired for trying to indict a Republican? And the Cons want us to believe that there's nothing wrong with this picture. Yeah...right. And I have a bridge to sell you.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:14 pmAssuming Hillary is elected President, then she won't be able to fire U.S. Attorneys investigating any Democrats, right?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:21 pm#38 - "Assuming Hillary is elected President, then she won’t be able to fire U.S. Attorneys investigating any Democrats, right?" Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Exactly. Just as then-Pres. Clinton never fired a single attorney for investigating him or other Democrats.
It's the GOP that fires people for purely partisan political reasons.
Makes you wonder why the GOP hates the US Constitution so much.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:47 pmYea. And that "death penalty" problem Gonzales mentioned as his "reason" for firing Paul Charlton. That was Charlton seeking Not to impose the death penalty. Mr. Gonzales doesn't think that's ever appropriate, since the government is always right and the defense is always wrong.
And there are never mitigating circumstance that should lead us to feel sorry for someone who tried hard but wasn't up to it, who came from a poor background, or who found himself in circumstances beyond his abilities or control. Nope. Those are never reasons enough to give a guy a second chance.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:49 pmHow would Mr. Gonzales know what reason he had if he had never looked at anyone's performance appraisal? The reason Mr. Gonzales is looking for reasons at all is because the first Bush story line - we don't need to stinkin' reasons - didn't come out in the wash. He's looking for a dog that'll hunt and he doesn't know the difference between a hound and a poodle, except when he looks in the mirror.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:54 pmBut, Democrat Soldier, I think Bill Clinton did fire the U.S. Attorney who was investigating Rostenkowski.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:00 pm#42 Judy
No links to your statement about Clinton ALLEGEDLY firing the attorney.
Where are YOUR links to support what you "think"?
Thanks,
April 25th, 2007 at 4:08 pmMr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM--BushCrimeCo)
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00613FD3A580C758EDDAA0894DB494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fR%2fRostenkowski%2c%20Dan
April 25th, 2007 at 4:15 pmGood start. Care to provide the quotes also?
I don't feel like paying for an article, and so far, it doesn't say WHO...
April 25th, 2007 at 4:19 pmhey, remember the song "Judy In Disguise"!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:22 pmI don't have quotes. Jay B. Stephens is the fired U.S. Attorney's name.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:23 pmOFF with her head...
...and maybe we'll get Bushiva's and Lil Dick's balls in the process...
April 25th, 2007 at 4:25 pmWhat are the posts about songs and "OFF with her head" about?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:29 pmI'm just trying to think ahead to how this will be applied to the next Democratic President. Has any candidate so far pledged not to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons and only for good cause?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:36 pmSorry, no “cigarâ€, Monica!!
I googled Clinton Jay Stephens Rostenkowski:
http://www.google.com/ search?hl=en&q=clinton+jay+stephens+rostenkowski&btnG=Google+Search
NOTHING about Stephens being fired because of Rostenkowski. It was "change of the guard" in '93 and Stephens was a leftover from Bush41
Matter of fact, his DEMOCRAT SUCCESSOR did INDEED indict Rostie…
Joe Conason provides FACT, not right-wing trash innuendo…
READ!!
http://www.salon.com/ opinion/ conason/ 2007/ 03/ 16/ clinton_attorneys/
April 25th, 2007 at 4:57 pmHas any candidate so far pledged not to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons and only for good cause?
It SHOULD be a GIVEN.
It WASN'T the case with BushCrimeCo (TM),,,
If a Democratic president is elected, they will likely get rid of ALL the US Attorneys.
EVERY president has done THAT at the beginning of their term...
Only BushCrimeCo (TM) has been SHOWN to have done it to intimidate their political rivals and influence ELECTIONS, which ARE ALSO CRIMES.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pmMr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM--BushCrimeCo)
Line 19- Brilliant writing- well done.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:08 pmSo, no harm no foul? Stephens' successor, Eric Holder, did indict Rostenkowski and obtained a conviction but then Clinton pardoned Rostenkowski. Did the Salon article mention that? Or the fact that Eric Holder was also replaced in 1997? Was that based on "political reasons" too?
BTW: I don't think it "should be a given" anymore. Let's get this straight up front. Is there going to be one, free shot called "changing the guard" in 2009 if Hillary is elected President -- regardless of who or what is being investigated -- THEN she won’t be able to fire any of those new U.S. Attorneys if they ever investigate any Democrats after that?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:09 pmI don't have a "link" but I'm sure you can look it up: in 1997 (well beyond the "changing of the guard"), Wilma Lewis was nominated by Clinton to replace Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney for the D.C. District.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:14 pmOK, so Clinton PARDONED him.
Let's talk Republic PARDONS, shall we???
Clinton also Marc Rich, whose LAWYER was SCOOTER LIBBY... How about THAT???
And Bush I pardoned all the Iran/Contra CRIMINALS, many of whom work for Bush 43, such as John Pointdexter, Elliot Abrams, John Negroponte, etc.
Bush 41 ALSO pardoned Orlando Bosch an INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST who sits comfortably in Miami TO THIS DAY. He was considered SO DANGEROUS that Bush 41's State Department REFUSED his application for asylum.
Yet Bush 41 PARDONED this INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST....
How's THAT for "political reasons"??
Nice, huh???
And ANY PRESIDENT should be GLAD to promise it, Democrat OR Republic, RIGHT???
April 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pmI don’t have a “link†but I’m sure you can look it up: in 1997 (well beyond the “changing of the guardâ€), Wilma Lewis was nominated by Clinton to replace Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney for the D.C. District.
Can you tell us WHY it happened??
Was it for POLITICAL REASONS??
All the articles found in a Google search seem to say NO....
And, again, TELL US about Bush 41 PARDONING AN INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST who to this day is in Miami, Orlando Bosch.
If you want to make claims like the Eric Holder one, have your FACTS ready, and search the links YOURSELF.
You don't seem to have a problem KNOWING HIS NAME, so WHY NOT tell us the REST, and provide PROOF????
Or are you another Bush/Rush azzhole-licker???
Yep, seems so....
See YOU in hell judy (cause I'LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
April 25th, 2007 at 5:28 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COXUCKER PUNK TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM--BushCrimeCo)
I guess I just have a better memory than Gonzales. I'm not defending anyone. As I posted above, I’m just asking questions and trying to think ahead to how this will be applied to the next Democratic President.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:41 pmI didn't realize one could be condemned to hell for that.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:43 pmSo, HOW do you feel about Bush 41 PARDONING INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST Orlando Bosch?
Also, HOW do you feel about Bush 43 and Cheney REFUSING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH TO THE 9/11 Commission?
i.e. REFUSING TO SWEAR TO GOD TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE USA about their involvement in 9/11, the Bin Ladens, and the Saudi TERRORIST FINANCIERS who presently have said they are FUNDING THE SUNNIS???
YOU have a chance to NOT BE CONDEMNED. For ME and Dick it is TOO LATE. I am a LIAR, MURDER, THIEF and TRAITOR TO THE USA.
Save YOURSELF, Judy!!!
April 25th, 2007 at 5:51 pmMr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM--BushCrimeCo)
As I posted above, I’m not defending anyone, Bush 41, Bush43, or Cheney2.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:56 pmAs I posted above, I’m not defending anyone, Bush 41, Bush43, or Cheney2.
RIIIGHT!!!
Bush you WERE ATTACKING Clinton's pardons, WEREN'T YOU???
Then, its... "I wasn't doing NUTTIN' nor DEFENDING NO ONE"!!!
You trolls are FUNNY....
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks for the FUN, jake, and we'll see YOU in hell (cause I'LL be THERE),
April 25th, 2007 at 6:05 pmMr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM--BushCrimeCo)
My name is Judy, not Jake, and I was asking the question about Clinton's pardon for the same reason you asked about Stephens' name: the Salon link you provided was an excerpt.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:13 pmSure, "jake".
The PARDON came up AFTER Rostenkowski was CONVICTED by the DEMOCRATIC US Attorney.
NO POLITICS at all.
And on the OTHER THREAD, it's AMAZING how many US Attorneys you say Clinton "replaced".
Were THEY all POLITICAL??
And HOW did you "remember" so much, if you have NO LINKS???
Funny, jake.
And PITIFUL.
Monica Goodling has been granted IMMUNITY, and will proceed to bring down Gonzo, Bush, and Cheney, TRAITORS ALL TO THE USA!!!
Have a good CRY, jake...
Heh heh heh! (TM--BushCrimeCo)
April 25th, 2007 at 6:20 pmOn the other thread, those are indeed U.S. Attorneys nominated by Clinton between 1997-2000 to replace U.S. Attorneys previously appointed by Clinton (exactly the situation we have with Bush). They were all DEMOCRATS, so you guess if they were all POLITICAL replacements. I don't know for sure, which is why I am asking the question (see thread topic). I got the information directly from the Clinton Library, so I don't have any "links" (as I said above). As for Goodling, I don't know if that is such a good idea -- we'll have to see whether she pulls another Oliver North (he testified before Congress with a grant of immunity during Iran-Contra but, again, I don't have a "link" for that either).
April 25th, 2007 at 6:30 pmLooking at the photo without captions, one could assume the two subjects are two mid-level mafioso thugs in expensive suits.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:53 pmEveryone is always oh-so-happy until the indictments are handed down.
jake,
again, you have NO LINKS?
WHY did the ORIGINAL attorneys WHO WERE REPLACED leave??
Were they FIRED, or did they take a position ELSEWHERE??
Because if it IS the latter, this is HARDLY POLITICAL...
Saying it was EXACTLY like Bush is NOT TRUE. Gonzales AND Bush have been SHOWN by emails of Kyle Sampson and others
to have replaced the attorneys because they were either prosecuting Republics or they were NOT investigating "voter fraud" charges by the Republics...
THAT is political, and THAT is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
Now, WHY did the Clinton attorneys LEAVE? You seem to have information on the NAMES that you got SOMEWHERE,
so WHY NOT SHOW US THE INFORMATION and let us DECIDE if it was POLITICAL????
What do YOU have to HIDE, Jake?? Just more Bush/Rush azzhole-licking half-truths???
BRING IT ON!!
April 25th, 2007 at 7:00 pmdemdandy:
A sitting Vice President cannot be indicted. I think Kucinich is trying to impeach Cheney though.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pm"IMPEACHING" IS "INDICTING"
Clinton WAS impeached (indicted). He was NOT convicted by the Senate.
In other words, FOUND NOT GUILTY..
No, about those LINKS to your statements???
April 25th, 2007 at 7:04 pmI'm not Jake, and I already said I got the names from the Clinton Library. There is no "link." How would you "link" to your own bathroom? As for Cheney, I did note that Cheney can be impeached, but let me make my post to demdandy crystal clear:
A sitting Vice President cannot be indicted by a grand jury.
Again, no "link" for that either, but that is the conclusion of the current state of the law in a memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. I can give you their phone number if you really want to follow up.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:23 pmI’m just trying to think ahead to how this will be applied to the next Democratic President. Has any candidate so far pledged not to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons and only for good cause?
Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Judy "good cause" is not a requirement for firing a U.S. attourney. These firings are being looked at to determine if obstruction of justice occured, as much evidence points in that direction. The larger issue, IMO, is that a clause was slipped into the Patriot Act stating that the president can appoint a U.S. attourney without Senate confirmation. If this doesn't sound like a problem to you, perhaps you could read up on pre-Nazi Germany.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:28 pmjake,
Nope, don't need it.
But the sitting VP CAN be IMPEACHED (which IS indictment).
Good semantics, though.
Still DON'T HAVE LINKS, but you KNOW so MUCH....
WHY should ANYONE believe you, if you don't BACK IT UP WITH PROOF?
Any AMATEUR debater know you don't ask OTHERS to find the "proof" to YOUR statements.
That's FUNNY, jake...
See you in hell jake/judy (cause I'LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
April 25th, 2007 at 7:31 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COXUCKER PUNK TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM--BushCrimeCo)
That's right, Lily, the biggest problem in Germany before WWII were roving packs of wild "attourneys" (sic) without the proper Senate confirmation -- give me a break.
Last time I will say it, Mr. Bush Goes To Hell, I am not Jake. I was not aware this was a debate, or that debate rules allow you to call your opponent by a different names / ad hominem attacks. You found the Salon article just fine. This may come as a shocker to you, but not everything in life has a "link" in the Internet. Maybe someday, in your perfect world. Have a good night.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:43 pmYeah, G'nite jake...
Yawn....
Funny how you have all that information about Clinton FIRING ATTORNEYS, and the NAMES OF THE ATTORNEYS, but NONE of the circumstances...
REALLY FUNNY...
April 25th, 2007 at 8:48 pmGood night, Joe.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:51 pmOops, attorneys. I guess that negates my whole post.
Read up on it anyway, and see what methods Hitler used to get the nazis into power. Stacking the courts, controlling the media....little things like that.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:55 pmAND Good Night, Joe MAMA!!!
April 25th, 2007 at 8:55 pmJudy:
I'm aware that Cheney, as veep, cannot be technically indicted. I used smiles, expensive suits and indictments to attempt a crude analogy of gangsterism vs the two public officials shown in the photo. My other excuse is: I believe Cheney eventually will be indicted as a private citizen. For what? Wait a minute while I search for some links.
Thanks
April 26th, 2007 at 4:44 amOnline Payday Loan
Outstanding provider of low rate pay day advances especially for simple money qualifying.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:17 amSt Paul Bankruptcy Attorney
I couldn't understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:51 pmEric
Good Luck..
March 31st, 2008 at 5:55 amGregory
The pen is really mightier than the sword, as you have proven here.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:11 amEric
Ok, I'm not in complete agreement with this, but I see your point. Thanks for sharing.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:49 pm