Gonzales may face criminal charges.
Gonzales may face criminal charges.
At a speech on Friday, ousted U.S. attorney John McKay revealed that the “U.S. Inspector General may recommend criminal prosecution of departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the conclusion of an investigation, possibly as early as next month.” The Spokesman Review reports:
McKay said he was summoned to Washington, D.C., in June and questioned for eight hours about possible reasons for his firing by investigators with the Office of Inspector General, who will forward their final report to Congress.
“My best guess is it will be released sometime next month,” and likely will include recommendations for criminal prosecutions of Gonzales and maybe others, McKay said.
Gonzales “lied about” reasons for the firings when questioned under oath in July by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now has hired a lawyer and is refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General, McKay said.
emptywheel has more.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why bother? It doesn’t matter if he’s convicted…Chimpy will only pardon him or commute his sentence.
October 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pmThe best way to play this would be to insure the 08 elections are out of the way before conviction takes place. That way it would stick as poo for brains would just parden him too.
October 21st, 2007 at 5:52 pmKarl Rove’s indictment is equally imminent.
Rove accused Chris Wallace of being an “Agent Of Congressâ€
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Rove_calls_Fox_host_agent_of_0819.html
One thing you can always take to the bank where Rove is concerned. He is ALWAYS guilty of that which he accuses others.
Rove is an agent of influence, to be sure.
Look who has won and who has lost as a result of Rove’s efforts.
Iraq is being depopulated and the oil pipeline to Israel is being built.
Iran will be attacked next, at Israel’s insistence.
Poppy Bush’s Opium crops in Afghanistan are producing record profits.
Weapons systems are being degraded, requiring replacement – record profits for the Defense Industry.
Oil is stair stepping its way to record highs, and will continue to do so.
The banking industry pushed through bankruptcy reform, just as the Fed had brought the cost of lending as close to zero as possible, while Greenspan insisted that everyone with a pulse buy a house they could not afford using adjustable rate credit, then borrow against it to inflate the economy, artificially.
Use of illegal labor in the US is at record highs – driving corporate profits at record highs and wages down.
The ranks of the uninsured in the US is at record highs, as are Prescription Drug prices.
The AGENT is Rove.
The consiglieri was “Fredo”
October 21st, 2007 at 6:01 pmBush will continue to prove his relevance by heading off any investigation of his lapdog, Alberto.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:06 pmGonzales was a tool of Cheney’s – directed by Addington.
Some constitutional scholars have questioned whether Addington, in his eagerness to expand the powers of the Presidency, which he and Cheney see as having been unduly diminished since Watergate, gives enough weight to the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. Some have suggested that he has aggrandized the powers of the President in such a way that the executive branch ignores the system of checks and balances set up by the Founding Fathers, so that its actions are unchecked and unaccountable. Bruce Fein, a Republican legal activist, told me that he regards Addington as an adequate lawyer but an inadequate student of American history, because he believes that Addington has failed to understand that the Founders designed the U.S. government specifically to insure that the executive would not have unlimited power. Fein suggests that the Founders, unlike Addington, understood the perils of concentrated power. They had seen in George III, among others, what tyranny meant.
What is the New Paradigm?
It’s a shorthand term that comes from a memo signed by Alberto Gonzales but believed to have been written in part by Addington, in which the authors articulated that the attacks of 9/11 required a legal response beyond the confines of ordinary criminal law and ordinary military law. Instead, they said, a “new paradigm†was called for, allowing the government to emphasize detection and prevention of crime, at the expense of more traditional notions of due process. Their aim was to stop terrorist attacks before they were perpetrated. To do so, they felt they needed to interrogate, detain, and try terrorist suspects in ways that would not be permissible under U.S. or international law. The New Paradigm has come to refer to all of the novel legal policies that the Bush Administration has forged in its approach to the global war on terrorism.
Following the September 11th attacks, the Bush Administration released memos asserting the President’s right to decide, among other things, how to wage war and treat prisoners. How much of this came from Addington?
Some lawyers in the Administration believe that, as one told me, “It’s all Addington.†While Addington, of course, could not have written every memo, his “fingerprints,†as Lawrence Wilkerson, the former assistant to Colin Powell, put it, were all over these policies.
At least fifty sources were interviewed for this story. And those who knew Cheney and Addington during the Vietnam War and Watergate told me that, ever since then, both men have wanted to correct what they saw as a weakening of the Presidency. Cheney has participated in the writing of two reports reflecting this view, and he talked about it in a recent press conference. In many ways, 9/11 gave Addington and Cheney the chance to implement their views on the need for a stronger Presidency, since in times of war the President’s powers are greatly augmented.
All Presidents, it is said, overreach during wartime, but, according to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., whom I had the pleasure of interviewing for my article, the Bush White House has done this differently. While earlier Presidents have, as you say, suspended ordinary laws, he suggests that earlier Presidents did not assert that this was their inherent constitutional right. In contrast, Schlesinger says, the Bush White House has taken these infamous aberrations and woven them together into a doctrine of Presidential power.
I’d like to ask him whether, in his view, there is anything that the President cannot legally do in the service of national security. Bruce Fein, the Republican legal activist, suggests that, in Addington’s view, the President could kill someone in a public park if he deemed the person to be an enemy combatant. I’d like to hear Addington’s thinking about why such an extreme view might be justified, and also why it is that, according to colleagues, he sees no political downside to these extreme views. For instance, he has repeatedly argued that there have been no political costs associated with Guantánamo Bay. Yet even President Bush has acknowledged that the Defense Department’s camps there have hurt the image of the U.S. abroad. It would be interesting to hear why Addington doesn’t agree with the President on this.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/060703on_onlineonly01
October 21st, 2007 at 6:09 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/opinion/29sun1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login
Mr. Gonzales’s Never-Ending Story
Published: July 29, 2007
President Bush often insists he has to be the decider — ignoring Congress and the public when it comes to the tough matters on war, terrorism and torture, even deciding whether an ordinary man in Florida should be allowed to let his wife die with dignity. Apparently that burden does not apply to the functioning of one of the most vital government agencies, the Justice Department.
Americans have been waiting months for Mr. Bush to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who long ago proved that he was incompetent and more recently has proved that he can’t tell the truth. Mr. Bush refused to fire him after it was clear Mr. Gonzales lied about his role in the political purge of nine federal prosecutors. And he is still refusing to do so — even after testimony by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, that suggests that Mr. Gonzales either lied to Congress about Mr. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping operation or at the very least twisted the truth so badly that it amounts to the same thing.
Mr. Gonzales has now told Congress twice that there was no dissent in the government about Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize the National Security Agency to spy on Americans’ international calls and e-mails without obtaining the legally required warrant. Mr. Mueller and James Comey, a former deputy attorney general, say that is not true. Not only was there disagreement, but they also say that they almost resigned over the dispute.
Both men say that in March 2004 — when Mr. Gonzales was still the White House counsel — the Justice Department refused to endorse a continuation of the wiretapping program because it was illegal. (Mr. Comey was running the department temporarily because Attorney General John Ashcroft had emergency surgery.) Unwilling to accept that conclusion, Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping.
Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller intercepted the White House team, and they say they watched as a groggy Mr. Ashcroft refused to sign off on the wiretapping and told the White House officials to leave. Mr. Comey said the White House later modified the eavesdropping program enough for the Justice Department to sign off.
Last week, Mr. Gonzales denied that account. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee the dispute was not about the wiretapping operation but was over “other intelligence activities.†He declined to say what those were.
Lawmakers who have been briefed on the administration’s activities said the dispute was about the one eavesdropping program that has been disclosed. So did Mr. Comey. And so did Mr. Mueller, most recently on Thursday in a House hearing. He said he had kept notes.
That was plain enough. It confirmed what most people long ago concluded: that Mr. Gonzales is more concerned about doing political-damage control for Mr. Bush — in this case insisting that there was never a Justice Department objection to a clearly illegal program — than in doing his duty. But the White House continued to defend him.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:13 pmFISA broadened law enforcement’s ability to wiretap, as all of you know. FISA concerns wiretapping for intelligence gathering purposes as opposed to investigating specific criminal activity. The legal standard is the same, however (probable cause), and as you’ve all read, the government can start the wiretap without obtaining judicial authorization as long as they seek authorization within 72 hours.
There is no other legal authority to wiretap.
Gonzales, Miers, and Ashcroft apparently told Bush that his inherent powers under the Constitution and Congress’s authorization to invade Iraq give him legal authority to do anything that he deems necessary to fight the war on terror. They likely based their opinion on Assistant Attorney General Woo’s legal opinion that drew that conclusion. However, there is no language in the Constitution or the Congressional authorization that authorizes the President to violate the Constitution or existing laws. Therefore, Woo’s argument is as lame as lame can get. The truth of the matter is that this is a no-brainer legal “problem.” This is not a matter about which reasonable people can differ, which is why so many conservatives are offended by Bush’s attempt to justify the wiretaps. No one in legal circles is buying Woo’s non-sensical argument.
This matter illustrates that no matter one’s political orientation, everyone must agree to respect the Rule of Law. Society unravels without it, which is why not even the President is above the law.
He has admitted that the Republican controlled Congress would not have passed a law giving him the power to wiretap the way he wants to do it. That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?
Woo, Ashcroft, Miers, and Gonzales should know better. Thirty minutes reviewing legal authorities would have resolved any questions they might have had regarding the legality of Bush’s wiretaps. They just told him what he wanted to hear and now they’re trying to protect his butt by selling this totally bogus argument politically. They certainly can’t sell it to lawyers and judges. That they’re willing to sacrifice their reputations by making this ludicrous legal argument says a lot about the kind of people that they are:
WHORES!
Posted by: mason on December 27, 2005 at 12:50pm
October 21st, 2007 at 6:16 pmListening to Stephen Hadley attempt to define the law defined by Common Article 3, it now becomes crystal clear why Rumsfeld disbanded Iraq’s Standing UNIFORMED Military at the time of our invasion.
They are attempting to redefine the Geneva Conventions to apply only to those captured “on the battlefield IN UNIFORM.”
Since the “battlefield” is undefined, it is literally EVERYWHERE, and since the enemy is conveniently undefined, it pertains to EVERYONE…including you and me.
The US and Israel are on a mission to overthrow the middle east – and in so doing, create a CIVILIAN UPRISING of non-uniformed “insurgent” fighters, whom this administration finds it convenient to brand as “Al Qaeda”
There is no “Al Qaeda Organization.”
“Al Qaeda In Iraq” is a Rovian Brand Strategy – just like “911″
People who find themselves occupied by a foreign invading force tend to fight back.
In other wars, our own government has branded them as “Freedom Fighters” when it serves the US Agenda.
The administration is attempting to create its own reality, based strictly on whether or not those who oppose our invading troops are wearing a uniform.
Sound anything like the Israeli occupation of Palestine, complete with check points and road blocks?
Who taught the US Troops torture techniques that would work specifically well on Arab detainees?
Coincidence?
Can US citizens traveling abroad on holiday become the victims of rendition? If Bush declares you an enemy, what are the limits? Can he declare that you are “Al Qaeda” and thereby subject you to the same interrogation practices and secret trials? Can he execute you?
Where does it stop?
October 21st, 2007 at 6:20 pmNow let the War Crimes Trials begin!
October 21st, 2007 at 6:22 pmSweet. This is how we can get the true story. Since Gonzales will be the one being prosecuted Georgie boy can’t use Executive Privilege to give him cover. We can subpoena witnesses to our heart’s content and Bush can’t tell them not to testify without being guilty of obstruction of justice.
I sure hope this guy is right.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:24 pmDamn it plunger. Just post the links instead of clogging this blog up with your cut and paste. Give is a short synopsis of what you think and then link to the article. You are as irritating as the trolls are.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:27 pmWallace v Gonzales COMPLAINT:
Defendant GONZALES is the current Attorney General of the United States and as such is the titular head of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE of the United States Government Situated in Washington D.C. With offices in Nevada. As such, his actions or inactions affect citizens of the State of Nevada as well as the entire United States and its territories. Defendant GONZALES was, at all times material to the event referred to as 9-11, WHITE HOUSE counsel and complicit in the now infamous torture brief co-drafted by JAY S. BYBEE now a member of the Ninth Circuit Court. In addition, he is a representative of the George W. Bush administration.
Defendants Dr. JAMES FETZER, Dr. STEVEN E. JONES and Dr. DAVID RAY GRIFFIN AKA SCHOLARS FOR 9-11 TRUTH in concert with other defendants JOHN or JANE DOES are domiciled throughout the United States whose actions impact the State of Nevada and it’s citizens as well as citizens of the entire United States.
Defendants JOHN and Jane DOES are those who act in concert with named Defendants to conceal or to expose the truth of circumstances surrounding the event commonly referred to as Nine-Eleven (9-11) or more specifically the events occurring on September 11, 2001 in which two alleged hijacked commercial aircraft struck the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and alleged to have resulted in the collapse of both towers killing an estimated 3,000 people together with a third aircraft which allegedly struck the Military headquarters building in Washington, D.C. known as the PENTAGON killing additional people and a fourth aircraft which allegedly dove into the earth at Shanksville, Pennsylvania also killing additional people.
The official government story of the events and circumstances leading to and occurring on that fateful day, September 11, 2001 hereinafter called 9-11 which has been consistently averred to by Defendant GONZALES and other JOHN or JANE DOES holds that nineteen male persons of Arabic racial extraction boarded commercial aircraft in Boston and Washington D.C. using box cutter (razor blade) weapons hijacked four (4) aircraft and diverted the flight paths resulting in the damages above referred to causing the government to (1) preemptively go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq (2) to enact laws such as PATRIOT ACT I & II, and to create a new department of the government named Department of Homeland security. The purpose of these actions ostensibly are to protect the Citizens of the United States and to engage in a never-ending “war†on terrorism. In this view, Defendant GONZALES stands firm. Plaintiff(s) seek judicial confirmation of this story line.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:31 pmFatal error.
Not sticking to their philosophy
that they had a right to fire them.
The cowards didn’t have the balls to tell the truth about why they fired the prosecutors.
And they threw Gonzo under the bus.
The Republicans eat another one of their own.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:33 pmGonzales role in War Crimes. Study history to recognize the war crimes”
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_downing.htm
Prados concluded in a similar vein: “Southern Focus clearly had the function of facilitating an invasion but was in itself an act of war. Saddam Hussein never did react to the strikes in such a fashion as to provide Bush with a casus belli, but the attacks continued until the very moment of the March 2003 invasion.
“Operation Southern Focus furnishes yet more evidence that George W. Bush, while talking diplomacy, pursued an aggressive war.”
In the case of Nazi Germany, the law on initiating war was not as clear-cut as it became in the post-World War II period, with the establishment of the United Nations Charter. Nowadays international law is presumably sacrosanct as applied to the actions of foreign leaders, who risk being seriously punished for violating it. Certainly the United States continues to pontificate about alleged violations of international law by other countries. “We’ve created a set of rules” for international relations, observes Steven Miller, editor-in-chief of International Security, the pre-eminent American journal on global security issues, “and one of the rules is that rules are for others.”
October 21st, 2007 at 6:36 pmBUSH’S WAR CRIMES
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/68705,CST-EDT-REF23B.article
Bush seeks retroactive immunity for violating War Crimes Act
September 23, 2006
BY ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN
Thirty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford created a political firestorm by pardoning former President Richard Nixon of all crimes he may have committed in Watergate — and lost his election as a result. Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.
The ”pardon” is buried in Bush’s proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ”pardon” provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.
Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:41 pmPlunger: Be not daunted by those who may already be aware of the information and service which you are providing or who may be jealous of the incredible “font” of inside information which you provide.
There are many of us who peruse the blog or actually post here who appreciate this vital information.
“Information is Power” and the more informed we all are, the more power we will have in taking back our democracy.
I really can’t quite comprehend the level of jealousy which your posts so obviously generate. I’d have to say it’s just a form of “sour grapes” myself.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:42 pmAvoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. He notes that given the vague language of the statute, no one could predict what future ”prosecutors and independent counsels” might do if they decided to bring charges under the act. As an author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I know that independent counsels (who used to be called ‘’special prosecutors” prior to the statute’s reauthorization in 1994) aren’t for low-level government officials such as CIA interrogators, but for the president and his Cabinet. It is clear that Gonzales was concerned about top administration officials.
Gonzales also understood that the specter of prosecution could hang over top administration officials involved in detainee mistreatment throughout their lives. Because there is no statute of limitations in cases where death resulted from the mistreatment, prosecutors far into the future, not appointed by Bush or beholden to him, would be making the decisions whether to prosecute.
To ”reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,” Gonzales recommended that Bush not apply the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Since the War Crimes Act carried out the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales reasoned that if the Conventions didn’t apply, neither did the War Crimes Act. Bush implemented the recommendation on Feb. 7, 2002.
When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/68705,CST-EDT-REF23B.article
October 21st, 2007 at 6:42 pmTwo years ago, Cheney appeared on Larry King. He stepped in it big time, but few people caught it. I alerted Rude Pundit and he wrote about it.
an excerpt:
Then Cheney made this statement: “In a sense, when you’re at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with.” So, like, if, in a sense, the Gitmo campers are “prisoners of war,” then, in a sense, don’t they get Geneva Conventions protections?
Cheney and Gonzales have been playing a semantics game to justify torture, since “war” was never formally declared. It’s pretty obvious why they chose to embark upon the path of war without ever formally declaring it – so they could not be held accountable for the War Crimes they knew they’d be committing.
Bush tells us every day that we’re at war. Cheney and Gonzales tell us that we’re not REALLY at war.
Problem is, Cheney is on tape stating not only that we are at war, but that we are holding “prisoners of war.”
The Geneva Conventions DO APPLY, and Cheney is guilty of war Crimes.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/lkl.01.html
KING: They specifically said, though, it was Guantanamo. They compared it to a gulag.
D. CHENEY: Not true. Guantanamo’s been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. Remember who’s down there. These are people that were picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan and other places in the global war on terror. These are individuals who have been actively involved as the enemy, if you will, trying to kill Americans. That we need to have a place where we can keep them. In a sense, when you’re at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with.”
So this is the war without end, and these prisoners will be held forever?
October 21st, 2007 at 6:43 pmSpeaking for myself and my group of friends who post here and/or peruse TP, your posts are very much appreciated. Please don’t allow those jealous of your sources to stop you from continuing to provide vital information to all of us.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:44 pmhttp://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060227fa_fact
New Yorker
From the article:
Yoo believed that the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief gave him virtually unlimited authority to decide whether America should respond militarily to a terror attack, and, if so, what kind of force to use. “Those decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make,” he wrote in a law article.
A top Administration official told me that Yoo, Addington, and a few other lawyers had essentially “hijacked policy” after September 11th. “They thought, Now we can put our views into practice. We have the ability to write them into binding law. It was just shocking. These memos were presented as faits accomplis.”
In Yoo’s opinion, he wrote that at Guantánamo cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees could be authorized, with few restrictions.
“The memo espoused an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the President’s Commander-in-Chief authority,”
So this same approach was used across the board. Addington effectively sought to obtain “legal opinions” which were in fact illegal, with the specific intent to provide Bush and Cheney with sufficient legal cover to behave as Dictators and Kings, as there were virtually no laws that applied to them, as determined by edict.
This is where we stand today. There is not one single law that applies to Bush or Cheney. They have found lawyers who were willing to craft opinions stating that they were above the law, and in so doing, have subverted the Constitution of the United States.
This activity was intentional, willful and treasonous.
They were sworn to uphold the constitution.
Given this information, others in a position to do something about it (who also swore under oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies Foreign and DOMESTIC) now have an obligation to fulfill.
They must call for the impeachment of this administration. It is their legal obligation given the evidence before them.
Time to choose sides, folks.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:44 pmThere exists within the government a parallel military / intelligence service – an entire parallel secret structure which is extra-constitutional – designed specifically to change the structure of government from a Representative Republic to a Fascist Dictatorship.
The model for this structure was known as “Gladio” in the late 1940s – having fallen under the control of the CIA in 1966.
The premise is to use a few inside operatives to stage massive terror events for the purpose of instilling enough fear in the populace that they willingly trade freedom for security.
THOSE WHO FAIL TO STUDY THE LESSONS OF HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT THEM.
Michael Ledeen has studied the lessons of history – and has applied them to his own agenda.
High Treason
From Wikipedia
“High treason, broadly defined, is an action which is grossly disloyal to one’s country or sovereign.
Participating in a war against one’s country, attempting to overthrow its government, and attempting to kill its head of state are perhaps the best known examples of high treason.”
Two out of three ought to do it.
The Bush Administration attacked America on 9/11 for the express purpose of overthrowing the then-existing form of government. While the Administration dubbed their atttack on US soil “The War ON Terror,” it is more aptly named “The War OF Terror,” a “war” of their own creation.
H I G H
T R E A S O N
Timewatch: Operation Gladio – Behind False Flag Terrorism & 9/11
Watch the “Gladio†video here: (part1)
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4900756773650110959
WATCH ALL THREE PARTS – ALL TERROR IS STATE SPONSORED – ALL OF IT.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:49 pm“Every pretext for war is created by those with the capacity to profit from it.”
Plunger
October 21st, 2007 at 6:50 pmHow does that pig diddler kaus keep his job?
http://www.slate.com/id/2176003/fr/flyout
October 21st, 2007 at 6:55 pmthe former ag. it’s as good a place to start as any.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:56 pmI really can’t quite comprehend the level of jealousy which your posts so obviously generate. I’d have to say it’s just a form of “sour grapes†myself.
Comment by Veritas — October 21, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
“Jealousy”? I’d say that was a load of donkey crap myself.
Ace/Plunger’s spamming is irritating and irrelevant. Your sycophantic defense of his spamming has been going on about as long as the spam itself and is just as irrelevant.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:01 pmSpeaking for myself and my group of friends who post here and/or peruse TP, your posts are very much appreciated. Please don’t allow those jealous of your sources to stop you from continuing to provide vital information to all of us.
Comment by Veritas — October 21, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Most grownups prefer to speak for themselves, Veritas. If you’re such a big fan, why not start your own blog?
October 21st, 2007 at 7:03 pmHey gummitch: How ’bout that – and I thought that you were a proponent of free speech? If the shoe fits……you know the drill, surely.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:15 pm—
October 21st, 2007 at 7:16 pmWhat in the hell is this crap?
Gummitch: Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. If you don’t like the length of the posts, go elsewhere yourself. Why don’t you start your own blog?
October 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pmBesides, the last time I looked TP had it’s own site monitors. If they don’t like the length of the posts, they can do something about it. For first time visitors or newbies who are still being educated, I fail to see how information, albeit lengthy, detracts from the process. After all, isn’t everyone on a quest for truth?
October 21st, 2007 at 7:22 pmGummitch: Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. If you don’t like the length of the posts, go elsewhere yourself. Why don’t you start your own blog?
Comment by Veritas — October 21, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
We did, actually. And the point isn’t a question of “free speech” it’s a question of appropriate time and place. Long, off-topic posts disguised as comments are what are being objected to. We constantly object to trolls derailing the point of comment threads; what’s the difference here, except that you personally think the spamming is useful and because you agree with ace’s opinions?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, absolutely. And we’re entitled to express those opinions without you suggesting that those opinions are motivated by petty jealousy.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:24 pmOr do we fall right into the Repuke trap of “eating our own” just like they do? I read all of the posts today before deciding to comment and, frankly, the “ace bashing” was pretty juvenile so I decided to stick up for him. I’ve vetted his sources and have yet to find errors so I will support someone who is attempting to provide the light of truth to an otherwise darkened democracy.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:24 pmGummitch: The reason I suggested jealousy (which, in fact, may be nothing more than angst or aggravation) is that it began to sound like boys playing bully in the schoolyard, that’s all. Frankly, I found that to be like the troll bashing that we all abhore and the reason why you developed an alternate site. Or am I wrong here?
October 21st, 2007 at 7:35 pmGummitch: Bottom line is peace. I meant no harm other than to be a cheerleader for free speech. Ace/Plunger is on the same side we’re on and we all need to stick together if we ever plan to get to the truth and begin to correct things.
And, as you’ve noticed, I will continue to be a supporter of anyone posting here, other than an obvious troll (and I don’t often even dialogue with trolls), who is getting “piled on”.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:38 pmA suggestion: If you don’t like the comments by plunger, don’t waste your time with them. Scroll to the bottom line and if the post is from someone you don’t care to read just keep on scrolling.
To paraphrase an old adage, I don’t agree with your comments but I will defend to the death of my keyboard your right to post them. Just don’t tell me I have to read them.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:39 pmI agree with you Veritas. Too many times people are too comfortable with what they don’t know.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:45 pmGummitch: The reason I suggested jealousy (which, in fact, may be nothing more than angst or aggravation) is that it began to sound like boys playing bully in the schoolyard, that’s all. Frankly, I found that to be like the troll bashing that we all abhore and the reason why you developed an alternate site. Or am I wrong here?
Comment by Veritas — October 21, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
We obviously saw something very differently. What I saw were 2-3 regular contributors here who politely asked ace to modify his approach to commenting. No one suggested that he simply stop and I certainly didn’t see anything that looked to me like piling on.
Ace posts long quotations that may well violate fair use, rather than a synopsis in his own words, a brief quotation and a link to the article, which is the accepted form. His failure to do that, his unwillingness to stick to the subject of the thread, and an apparent unwillingness to accept any criticism about his approach is what raises my ire. Not jealousy.
Weekdays, TP offers an open thread and there are plenty of other political blogs that offer them as well, often several times a day. That’s where “off-topic” comments belong but very few sites will tolerate long poorly-attributed quotations from other sources, and much of ace’s posts border on plagiarism.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:50 pmYeah, may face….Whatever, these people don’t face anything but cushy think tank positions until their next at bat. This country is corrupt to the core.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:55 pmA lot of people are not going to like my 2 cents, and I certainly do not want to slam plunger,…
However,
Do you remember when he was banned for doing this before?
It does clog up the thread.
Plunger has some valid points and is obviously passionate about it, and I admire that –
however, posting a link is not a bad idea. I scrolled through each plunger comment once I saw it was one after the other.
It’s a forum, not a one man discourse.
I believe that is what turns people off.
Ace was not so verbose. Plunger is too much so.
my2cents – - –
(Go Red Sox)
October 21st, 2007 at 8:00 pmThanks for the clarification, Gummitch. I’m uncertain what “fair use” is all about as I’ve never cut and paste any of my comments from other sources. I’m also uncertain how one “borders on plagiarism”. Isn’t it one or the other? I do concede to seeing your point about the length of some of the excerpts though.
True: Thanks for the input and past experience. I just feel that if people aren’t up for reading the lengthy ones, they just scroll past them.
I guess that, after the incessant hours of troll blather in the past, I don’t find the lengthy posts filled with information to be that bothersome.
October 21st, 2007 at 8:15 pmWhy bother? It doesn’t matter if he’s convicted…Chimpy will only pardon him or commute his sentence.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 21, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Maybe there is a way to stretch out the sentencing so that Gonzo is convicted AFTER the current corrupt, criminal president is gone from office (in 456 days and 17 hours), and UNAVAILABLE (hopefully in jail, HIMSELF!) to pardon the lying little miscreant!
October 21st, 2007 at 8:16 pmGummitch: You’re right about the generic/open threads as a better venue for posts which are off topic and I’m sorry to other readers for getting sidetracked into this conversation – which is definitely – off topic.
October 21st, 2007 at 8:17 pmTripMaster: With the way investigations are going these days, I don’t believe it will be difficult to stretch it out. Hope they can.
October 21st, 2007 at 8:18 pmGonzo would look pretty cute in orange.
October 21st, 2007 at 8:18 pmNo worries for the GOP as Gonzo has lawyered up with Side Show Bob Twillly what ever his name is. This is the first of many cases that Gonzo committed crimes with. It’s a long list so just sit back and watch the show.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:03 pmI don’t care if Bush does pardon him. I will enjoy every moment of a criminal prosecution and a guilty verdict.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:16 pmBartlebee: That interview was pretty damning and damaging to the Bush Administration and it’s “high time”.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:38 pmAnd now, live from his “Fortress of Solitude”, aka “Mom’s Basement”, aka “The Crawl Space Underneath The Doublewide”, it’s “The Hillybilly Sunday Night Hour of Nonsense”, w/ your host, Mr Billy Hillybilly…
October 21st, 2007 at 9:48 pmI see Plunger is again indulging his ego-driven compulsion to spam the threads. What a waste.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:09 pmDamn it plunger. Just post the links instead of clogging this blog up with your cut and paste. Give is a short synopsis of what you think and then link to the article. You are as irritating as the trolls are.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 21, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
AMEN!!
October 21st, 2007 at 10:22 pm2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WEEKLY POLL
October 21st, 2007 at 10:37 pmhttp://www.votenic.com
Results Posted Tuesday Evening.
FREE, NON-BIASED
If AG were to be held on criminal charges, it would be a huge blow to Bush&Co. Of course, were he to be found guilty, Bush would pardon him.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:02 pmBut the AG being charged criminally would be a spectacle in itself. Expect that it probably won’t even get that far — although personally, I’d like to see AG and the entire BushCo on trial – they are all criminals.
I see Plunger is again indulging his ego-driven compulsion to spam the threads. What a waste.
Comment by barfly — October 21, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
I actually enjoy both of your postings, and don’t see a problem with either.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:03 pmI’ve seen all too many “may be”’s.
I want to read a headline telling me that any/all of these crooks are facing imminent criminal prosecution.
Think of the precedent it will set if the multitudes of crimes committed by members of this administration go unpunished.
When someone like John Dean states that the apparent crimes of the current administration have gone far beyond what even Nixon’s committed and have so far gotten away with, and others like Bruce Fein and Jonathan Turley speak about the multiple abuses of power and Presidential authority, I can’t understand why the heck nothing is being done to rectify it and bring them to justice so that it will be less likely to be repeated in the future.
To me, the failure of Congress (for one) to effectively redress these crimes is a bit like a mother in denial of a child’s criminal activity. It’s easier to be in denial, otherwise you have to do the hard work of dealing with the problem.
Democratic (and Republican) leaders, you need to grow up and do not what’s necessarily best for you, but what is right, and what is best for the country and our future!
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 am“When someone like John Dean states that the apparent crimes of the current administration have gone far beyond what even Nixon’s committed and have so far gotten away with,”
As I re-read this part of my comment, I realize that it might not be clear that who I’m referring to is the current administration, not that Nixon’s people have gotten away with anything.
Ah, the perils of posting after being up all night..
And on the other subject in this thread, after reading the comments regarding the history of “plunger” and their continued behavior after I commented yesterday and politely asked for ‘brevity’, I’ll start reporting their huge posts as ‘abuse’. I like ‘free speech’ as much as the next person, but there’s a limit to what’s considered generally acceptable and considerate. This behavior goes well beyond that.
Damn, I hope that wasn’t too long.. :-)
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:16 amTRDaggett, your message and its intent was perfectly clear.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:39 amI share your sentiment.
So many crimes being observed by noted legal scholars, yet nothing is being done to stop Bush&Co.
First it was: Get rid of Gonzales, he lied, he’s dishonest, he’s not qualified, he should be be fired, he should be prosecuted.
Gonzalez is out and now it’s:
And they threw Gonzo under the bus.
The Republicans eat another one of their own.
Comment by Guido OBGYN Lover — October 21, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
Heh, heh, heh. ;)
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:42 amGonzo may face criminal charges.
WOOO HOOOO!!!
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 amFitz!
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:12 pmNo problem for Gonzo. On his way out of the White House door, Bush will sign (with glee) complete and sweeping pardons for any criminal conduct by each and every member of the staff — Rove, Gonzo, Scooter, etc. — as one last middle finger to the Democrats/sane Republicans who have tried to hold this administration accountable for their actions.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:09 pm