It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Conservative defenders of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby have settled on their No. 1 talking point: the grand jury investigation into the CIA leak scandal represents the “criminalization of politics.”
In other words, they say, the outing of a covert CIA agent in a time of war to punish a whistleblower is just everyday “politics” — nothing out of the ordinary, certainly nothing criminal. In fact, according to conservatives (as articulated by the National Review), the “criminalizing of politics” is actually “the most dangerous fire of this ordeal.”
To spread this talking point across the nation, the right has received a major assist from Fox News. According to a database search, every single television reference to the CIA leak scandal as the “criminalization of politics” in the last 30 days has been on Fox. Even more stunning: on every occassion, the phrase was introduced into the segment by a Fox News anchor or correspondent, never by a guest.
Which brings us to the suspected real reason for this effort; redistricting might put a few more Republicans into courthouses around the state, while taking out a few unbeloved Democrats. Like, say, Travis Co. District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who oversees the state Public Integrity Unit and thus has the authority to prosecute state leaders for any official misconduct. This makes Earle pretty much the last Democrat in Texas with statewide power, and some Republicans -- including those in Travis Co.'s House delegation -- don't hide their desire to get him out. Past efforts to strip the Public Integrity Unit from Earle's office have been unsuccessful, if only because the efforts have been seen as retaliation for Earle's specific prosecutions of such state officials as U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Under cover of a wholesale redistricting effort, this time may be different.
Originally posted by Toelint
Who was Kay Bailey Hutchison? Why...
Yesterday, offering a hint of the attack White House allies will launch on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald if and when he announces any indictments, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison dismissed the possible felony indictment of perjury as a mere “technicality”:
Ms. Hutchison said she hoped “that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”
[Yes, that moron actually just said that. But when Clinton was President...]
On February 2, 1999, Hutchison stood with a bipartisan group of senators at a press conference announcing a resolution to open the Senate trial on the impeachment of President Clinton. At the time, Hutchison said it was vitally important to prosecute on perjury charges because telling the truth is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system:
"[S]omething needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray. And I think it is most important that we make that statement and that it be on the record for history."
I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury. And I don’t want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don’t want it to be faded in any way."
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Toelint, are you for or against the GOP, or are you for or against the Dems, or are you for or against the prosecution of Republican evildoers (which is all of them! I hear chorused somewhere) by Democrat D.As?
First you make a snide remark about Democratic prosecutors, then you post a quote showing that the GOP started Delay's problems by trying to oust a thorn in their side through other means.
I am confused. (there's a little French-style accent over the e so it sounds more Shakespearian)
Originally posted by Full Metal
So funny! In 1998 The Republicans wanted to Execute the President because they said he committed perjury, but now that the republicans do it?
Originally posted by Full Metal
So funny! In 1998 The Republicans wanted to Execute the President because they said he committed perjury, but now that the republicans do it?
Originally posted by Full Metal
So funny! In 1998 The Republicans wanted to Execute the President because they said he committed perjury, but now that the republicans do it?
Originally posted by junglejake
...So you supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton?
Originally posted by Full Metal
If he had committed perjury then yes, he was found not guilty, therefor he didn't commit perjury, therefor the impeachment had no base. If he had he deserved to get impeached for committing a crime that is major, Perjury is major
Originally posted by Full Metal
? A bj is sex? Damn then I have had sex with at least a dozen girls! Wait, it isn't sex... It's foreplay, but not sex.
Originally posted by Full Metal
? A bj is not sex! Sex is the yoohoo in the waawaa, a bj or going down on a girl is not sex! It is foreplay!