Catching Traitors
Hey, looks like the Justice Department is going to find the scummy traitor leakers.
I hope they subpoena every one of those bastards at the New York Times and US News & World Report.
Posted by Rosemary on
12.30.2005
|
The Queen's Court
|
|
|
Subscribe |
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
Now that they've gone ahead and sold out national security just so they can continue their obsessive quest to slander the President, it's out and we can find the cocroaches who betrayed America. And, with any luck, we can prosecute the New York Times and US News &World report while we're at it--although I understand the latter may be hoping for too much, it may be time to have a new set of test cases to find out.
I continue to be more than a little amused at the hypocritical assholes who said that "leaking" Valerie Plame's non-undercover name was a national security threat, but programs to find and kill our enemies overseas or locate dirty bomb materials here in the US, why it's just grand to reveal all the details of that to our enemies---as long as you don't like the President, it's perfectly fine!
I hope to see lots and lots of people in jail here. Time to revisit all the Pentagon Papers cases in fact...
I continue to be more than a little amused at the hypocritical assholes who said that "leaking" Valerie Plame's non-undercover name was a national security threat...
Can't speak for anyone else, but I've said it a thousand times already: No one is above the law -- not terrorists, not leakers, not the President of the United States.
I hope they find the leaker in this case, just like I hope they find the leaker in the Plame scandal.
I hope to see lots and lots of people in jail here. Time to revisit all the Pentagon Papers cases in fact...
Hmmm. That case didn't turn out so well for the White House. You sure you want to go there?
EVILWHITECHRISTIANTALIBANMALEDOMINATIONDESTRUCTIVEBASTARDS (I think I covered all the common names...let me know if I didn't) will be screaming the Rupublicans are destroying the Constitutuions. That leaking anything to get Bush is NOT a crime...only leaking Clinton screwing around with that bimbo-numbskull is a crime and should be punished with prison.
It's not Treason if you're smearing Bush and killing American servicemen and women fighting terrorists. It's only 'treason' if you DON'T tell.
He's still a "regular" judge. He just resigned the FISA court. The districts and circuit appeals courts are, after all, Article III courts -- lifetime tenure and all. FISA is an Art. 2 court, wholly a creature of statute and tunure is determinied by Congress. Kind of like a CEO stepping down but retaining his seat on the Board of directors.
Rose, darling. Once again, I don't believe that spreading gossip among girlfriends constituted exposing state secrets, nor was telling a reporter who was doing whom a "leak" of classified material. Juicy to be sure, but not whistleblowing -- although those are the kind of fun little details that make being a divorce lawyer more interesting than the General Hostpital ever was. Unless you work in Washington DC, where a client's tales of incest, illicit sexual conduct and sorted affairs do indeed include secret agents and the intrigue of the rich and powerful acting out behind closed doors. Now that kind of practice is what book deals are made of.
Oh, and try and put a little more roughage in your husband's diet. He seems a bit full of it. Come on Dean, you can do better than that. Responsible journalists performing due diligence in making sure they confirmed a source's story I'd almost buy, but not really. Reluctance to expose a secret program until it became obvious that the Administration was completely involved in a pattern that disregards human rights and civil liberties in every aspect of their policies connected to their metaphorical war on terror, but that would imply that the reporters had an even larger sense of conscience than getting additional verification.
Nope, remember to keep it simple. It's not that the liberal media is obsessed with "getting Bush" (they are -- or should be, he's dangerous). They should go after him just as voraciously as the bought and paid for Bush apology professionals at Fox, Clear Channel, and the WSJ will defend him at any cost.
Simple greed and book deals, that's how timing works in DC. Nothing gets right down to the bottom line like watching out for the bottom line. This story was untold until it would generate the best publishing deal. That and if it broke during election season it would have been drowned out by the white noise of the real war the conservatives are fully mobilized in winning. The war against liberals. The heck with the duty to inform the public so they can make an informed choice, and the heck with scruples regarding balancing national security verus privacy rights. What will make the most cash?
But really, to say Bush didn't want to make any waves as long as things didn't go public? Take that tale on the road. The world of stand-up comedy is almost ready for that one. Remember to snarl when you tell it, the audience will love it.
Rose, darling. Once again, I don't believe that spreading gossip among girlfriends constituted exposing state secrets, nor was telling a reporter who was doing whom a "leak" of classified material. Juicy to be sure, but not whistleblowing -- although those are the kind of fun little details that make being a divorce lawyer more interesting than the General Hostpital ever was.
I didn't say it was. Help me out, where did I ever suggest that it was?
"If you Google terms like ChimpyHitler or Amerikkka, you'll find that the only ones who use those terms are right-wingers. Which I find as funny as all get-out."
Bullshit and easily disproved.
Here's what I found for Amerikka, among the first twenty hits:
http://www.pieman.org/anti-bushlinks.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/amerika.html
http://members.aol.com/Starr24601/WakeUp.html
http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/amerikkkans.html
http://maritimes.indymedia.org/news/2005/05/10237.php
Hmm, there's not a single right-wing site in the group.
As for terms like "ChimpyHitler," you should realize those are jokes that deliberately pile together as many of the slurs of the Left as possible. Google will easily show that lefties do indeed refer to Bush as the chimp, the shrub, Hitler, and so on.
When I google Amerikkka and Bushitler, of the eight web sites using that phrase on the first Google result page, seven are right wing sites. The other appears to be a left-wing site that I've never heard of.
'Nuff said.
I copied this from another thread I seem to have killed:
But here is something we haven't talked about yet. The President is above the law, according to the Constitution. Even a Senator or Congressman like Tom Delay can be hauled before the appropriate criminal court by the prosecutor in any jurisdiction where a crime is committed. But the President can't. And the President can only be indicted, tried and convicted by political bodies, not judicial ones. Hmmmm. That's odd. And, in fact, we have seen that the President can actually break the law and, as long as the people are behind him politically, never be tried and convicted for it. So, President Clinton, protected by the Constitution, was above the law. And he wasn't breaking the law to protect the country, he was breaking it to protect himself.
So, why did the Framers put the President above the law, including giving him the power to pardon, except in cases of impeachment?
Yours,
Wince
Similar agreements happen all the time.
If you have laws that will allow spooks to be spooks, they will find ways around other laws which try to limit them. Information wants to be free, and those whose job it is to free information are very good at it.
Yours,
Wince
Sorry, you lost me. What's your point?
Wince, the law of impeachment is an English Common Law tradition, originally for peers in the House of Commons but (and still to this day) mostly used to keep judges in line. Especially those with tenure "during good behavior."
The Monarch was "above the law" and had to be deposed before (and if) he were to be tried, usually in a violent episode. "We The People" changed that by specifying in no uncertain terms that POTUS can be impeached, but limited the Senate's judgement to removal and disqualification of further office. That did not mean that they weren't criminally chargable and punishable as well (see Art.I, Sec.3). Also Art.I, Sec.5 allows the Congress itself to set their own rules for acceptence and expelling a member short of impeachment (take a look at this quicky article).
POTUS, V-POTUS and "civil officers of the United States" (Art.II, Sec.4) are impeachable and also can expect to enjoy the protection of that procedural hurdle before they are indictable. Members of Congress are not civil officers as made clear by this clause: "No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States" (Art.I, Sec.6)
Judges, however, were and continue to be impeached by the House prior to removing them from office and before any criminal charges could be filed, much like they were for centuries in England by the House of Commons. Statutes of limitations are tolled, again via common law, until the impeached official is removed by the Senate (or House of Lords in England). Note also that impeachment in England as well as of the POTUS is for acts constituting treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors -- but presumably judges can be impeached for "bad behavior."
Criminal proceedings are of such a nature to obviously interfere with official duties, and also can be leveled by an unscrupulous prosecutor for political hackery. Thus a prosecutor's usually unfettered discretion must stop short of actually filing charges against such an official -- in state government too -- until and unless s/he is first removed from their important duties. But, since members of Congress aren't impeachable, there's no procedural hurdle.
A judge or POTUS or other civil official (like the Secretary of Defense) can file a motion to dismiss an indictment, enjoying sovereign immunity until and unless they are impeached or otherwise leave the office. The cases you see, like Handi v. Rumsfeld, are not against the SecDef personally but in his official capacity. Legislators do enjoy limited immunity while actually at their job or traveling to and from it. Judges as well as lawyers do too, but that affects things like arrest or being served, not whether a grand jury can return a true bill,
Remember that Clinton was disbarred, a plea deal or sorts where he didn't challenge the disbarrment and no Arkansas D.A. brought charges. But nofederal official that I recall, not even Mr. Starr who certainly had the right and the power, elected to proceed with a criminal case after Clinton was out of office and fair game. That was yet another piece of evidence to my mind that the whole thing was no more than a political game rather than a true criminal investigation warranting even a 10th of the cost to the taxpayers. That's always a distinction between the respective Clinton and Bush bashers. Clinton is vilified for personal wrongdoing, while Bush's critics (at least the ones with some rationality) stick to his official malfeasance.
Here Pam, read Article I Section 3:
Take a look at the case of the Florida Judge Alcee Hastings (I remember him because one of my professors was one of his his lawyers). He was impeached by the House, removed by the Senate, which could have (but didn't) disqualify him from holding any further elective office. Presumably those Senators who declined to go the whole way and disqualify him were satisfied that if he was guilty of the bribery felonies he was charged with, he would be convicted and that would be enough to prohibit him from seeking further office.
What they probably didn't count on was that the guy who allegedly bribed him went to prison yet didn't finger the judge. Hastings was fully acquitted (and the guy convicted of bribing him was pardoned by Clinton (see Pardongate). He's currently running for his forth term as a Congressman. And quite the character he is.
If there was ever a reason to revile Clinton for how he acted in his offical capacity it was the way he passed out pardons -- on that I have no argument. However, legally the only Constitutional check on POTUS's absolute discretion to pardon any damn person he wants is that he can't use the pardon power to keep someone (including himself) from being impeached. (Art.II Sec.2) But WTF, I did't like the way Ford, Reagan or Bush (41) used the pardon power either.
It's hard to criticize our Shrub on pardons, though (yeah, I said it) since the only power he uses less than pardons is the veto. Ironic don't you think. He wants new powers but doesn't use the ones he has.
I am not surprised that a combined search would turn up right-leaning sites, as such sites do tend to mock the usage of the left.
You said that these terms are not used on the left, and that's just a lie.
A State Judge (at least here in Ohio) can be suspended by the State Supreme Court, and I would assume that SCOTUS could suspend a judge's license to practice law in federal courts. But investigation is not an impeachment proceeding. Of course there is nothing preventing Richardson from taking a leave of absence or recusing himself until things sort themselves out.
Bostonian, as Rose's hubby often points out, a lie is a serious accusation. ++UG may have been somewhat inaccurate, but not misleading and his point is well taken.
Now, if he really is the leaker as seems to be implied by your question, THAT impeachment will be the political football of the decade. (If he fights it). These guys have a hard time getting 60 votes on what color to paint the Rotunda. Can you imagine trying to get 66 on a case that gets to the very heart of the political divide?
As I pointed out, that is untrue.
I called him a liar, because if he spends two minutes a week on lefty sites, he knows better. And I can't believe he spends no time at all on lefty sites.
No, that doesn't make him a liar. It means that, at most, he was mistaken, or that he was guilty of the typical internet bad habit of ridiculous hyperbole. Like calling someone a liar when you have no idea what he was thinking. That's also ridiculous hyperbole.
Yours,
Wince
Absolutely, I spend time on lefty sites. But none of the lefty posters that I read have ever used those expressions, to my knowledge. Neither have I.
Ah well, never mind. As I've said before, it's easier debating hallucinations than real people, and if some people have to sprinkle their comments with idiotic nomenclatures in order to make it easier to argue with mental sock puppets, so be it. Just don't confuse what I've said with what they're pretending I've said.
Yours,
Wince
I think the reason that you don't see it is that you either don't read every comment or you just don't visit the really hateful sites. Hardcore wingers on both sides like to frequent the hateful sites because it cements the prejudice that the winger believes is true of all he/she opposes. Kinda like people throwing Rushbo's talking points at me as proof that I'm a blind sheep. I don't listen to Rush, never really have, but I'm constantly blamed for things he says.
In the same vein, wingers like to paint the entire left by hateful remarks and actions of people like Michael Moore and Kos. Everyone does it. You don't have to be hardcore to do it either. I've had people accuse me of being stupid, blind, racist, a chickenhawk, and a woman hater just for the outrageous crime of being a Republican.
344,000 for Republican racists, and 55,000 for Rethugs.
Really easy and not surprising. Perhaps you are so used to seeing the hate that you don't flinch anymore.
I too don't read the commenters at Kos, I get too mad at them. At the same time, I don't misrepresent right wingers here with some of the terminology or thought processes that can be found spewing from commenters at some of the seedier right wing sites. Why? Because I haven't heard anyone here using that terminology here.
It would be nice if the favor was returned, but I'm not holding my breath.
But what about here? Do you read the comments here? ;)
Yours,
Wince
I read with great interest the comments at my site because there are only about two a month . . . usually from Rose or Ara. ;-) But it does give me an outlet to spew things I'd never feel comfortable posting here.
Bushitler is a right wing slur begun against MoveOn.org as far as I'm concerned. A mischaracterization to boot. A hyperbole illustrating a hyperbole and totally dismissable.