Comments on: Conyers blasts DoJ for cherry-picking U.S. attorney docs.

By: Jake D.

Jake D. — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:59:06 +0000

Anyone else?

By: Cappy

Cappy — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:08:10 +0000

What? You actually expect them to turn over documents that they know will implicate them? From the outset they were expecting to have a Republican legislature that would provide no oversight. They weren’t expecting to have to be accountable.

By: the Mocha Messiah

the Mocha Messiah — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:36:44 +0000

>wants more examples of U.S. Attorneys who
> were investigating Democrats being fired by
> Democratic Presidents,

actually I’d like examples of Democatic presidents firing Attorneys who were investigating people who did business with people in the whitehouse, who could possibly be implicated in thier crimes..

By: the Mocha Messiah

the Mocha Messiah — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:34:55 +0000

>Draft dodgers fled to Canada during the Vietnam war.

Are you saying draft dodgers wernt breaking the law jake?

By: the Mocha Messiah

the Mocha Messiah — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:33:55 +0000

>thatâ€™s not attorneys, moron. That is ONE attorney, in 1976.

Right, Jake is grasping at straws. For someone who claims to be a lawyer, jake seems to have no comphrenesion of the fact that “bu-bu-but your honor someone else did it too” isnt any sort of valid legal defense.

Also, jake mentioned ONE prosecutor in the carter administration..who was NOT pursuing any prosecutions that would have lead straight back to the whitehouse, like Carol Lam was. Jake, care to remind us exactly who Carol was pursuing, and who those people had close ties to?

Another thing jake the idiot didnt realize was that Carter didnt have the power to appoint a new prosecutor without congressional approval, like bush did because of some random line slipped into the “patriot” act.

And not only that, Jake, the supposed lawyer, doesnt understand whats involved with “at will” employment. Jake thinks that just because you can fire someone for no reason, that you can fire them because they are black.
Yes jake, even with “at will” employment, there are still illegal reasons to fire somone…

Thats how ignorant of the law jake the imaginary lawyer is.

By: Jake D.

Jake D. — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:29:17 +0000

If anyone else NOT on the “Ignore List” wants more examples of U.S. Attorneys who were investigating Democrats being fired by Democratic Presidents, let me know.

By: Jake D.

Jake D. — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:23:04 +0000

Draft dodgers fled to Canada during the Vietnam war — Nixon was never indicted or convicted for any crime either — they all got a Presidential Pardon too.

By: Bobwurst

Bobwurst — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:09:17 +0000

Can you say Presidential Pardon?

Comment by Jake D.
Why the need for a pardon if they haven’t done anything? You’re the “attorney”.

By: jb

jb — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:46:27 +0000

Keep digging Mr. Conyers…..the dirty truth will out.

By: troqua

troqua — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:32:39 +0000

Conyers really did serve in the military, and really is a lawyer. Unlike the poser on the board.

By: katy

katy — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:29:43 +0000

kinda makes me wonder, still, why ANYone
bothers to engage with him…
…

By: ronjazz

ronjazz — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:43:58 +0000

Jake likes to destroy his own talking points. Kind of makes him unnecessary, easily-duped and quite stupid. Makes my job easier.

By: Jay Levitt

Jay Levitt — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:42:13 +0000

What do we want?

Responsive pleadings or court decisions that present contrary arguments and facts!

When do we want it?

As soon as reasonably possible given the adversary nature of the federal court system!

By: ronjazz

ronjazz — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:42:02 +0000

For anyone not old enough to know about previous Democrats doing the same thing with U.S. Attorneys: http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,945941,00.html

Comment by Jake D. â€” September 10, 2007 @ 6:56 pm

that’s not attorneys, moron. That is ONE attorney, in 1976.

Nice try.

By: ronjazz

ronjazz — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:39:51 +0000

My â€œinsightâ€ is that Conyers got his pound of flesh from Gonzales, for something that both Carter and Clinton did with no Congressional subpoena or investigation, so the Demoncrats continue this witch-hunt at their own political peril.

Comment by Jake D. â€” September 10, 2007 @ 6:35 pm

Your “insight” isn’t familiar with the facts, as usual.

By: Buck Fush

Buck Fush — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:39:33 +0000

Jake D Fake is not old, he is a known liar. Most likely 25-32 yrs old, and more than likely with the time he wastes here, a paid RNC troll.

How much you get per post Jakie?

By: ronjazz

ronjazz — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:38:23 +0000

Conyers is ultra-senile. He could use a resignation for a change.

Comment by Dean CT â€” September 10, 2007 @ 6:20 pm

several resignations. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Betrayus, to start.

By: troqua

troqua — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:01:58 +0000

Can you say President Barack Obama and Madame Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton?
I can and it sounds wonderful.

Comment by Warwhatisitgoodfor â€” September 10, 2007

Splendid. It does sound wonderful.

By: Jake D.

Jake D. — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:56:58 +0000

For anyone not old enough to know about previous Democrats doing the same thing with U.S. Attorneys: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945941,00.html

By: Warwhatisitgoodfor

Warwhatisitgoodfor — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:56:29 +0000

Can you say President Barack Obama and Madame Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton?
I can and it sounds wonderful.