Author Topic: Immunity for Goodling?  (Read 3672 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Immunity for Goodling?
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2007, 04:35:50 AM »
Quote
Wasn't that what Gonsalez did?

Finally. Eventually. Maybe he should have admitted sooner that he couldn't remember. Better than being caught out in the end anyway.

Didn't Dylan do a song about this administration?

"The stories, they are a-changin'..."
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Immunity for Goodling?
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2007, 08:56:23 AM »
Didn't Dylan do a song about this administration?

"The stories, they are a-changin'..."

I'm not so sure that was only about this administration. Seems to be the case for every administration in the 20th century.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Immunity for Goodling?
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2007, 09:25:28 PM »
Quote
So what is Libbey s offense ?

What did he lie about under oath?



I don't know either.

I think that even the members of the jury that tryed him would be hazy on this.

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Immunity for Goodling?
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2007, 02:27:23 AM »
Quote
I don't know either.

I think that even the members of the jury that tryed him would be hazy on this.

I wouldn't think so. They would have had to consider him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to vote for conviction, which they obviously did. Hard to consider someone guilty of something beyond a reasonable doubt if you don't have any idea what they are guilty of, wouldn't you think? Or do you believe all those nice people were suddenly stricken with mass confusion?

What do you think of Alberto's sudden amnesia? Early Alzheimers, maybe?
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Immunity for Goodling?
« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2007, 03:28:06 AM »
I wondered if that might be the case.  But then he said something like, "Oh, I would have remembered if it happened that week, because that's the week I travelled to Mexico and it was Meth Awareness Week..."  so for a second or two I wondered if  he was on drugs. 

Then I thought no, this is just a big fake-out for us poor shlubs who pay his salary.  All that talk about "Oh he's practicing for a month and people are getting very exasperated with him"  I think was simply to make us think he was going to even attempt to answer questions. 

All he did was say variations of "I don't recall" over a hundred times. 
That deserves impeachment right there.  He doesn't RECALL?  Boot him out, let him go be a real estate lawyer in Texas again.  We can get someone from India or Sri Lanka who damn well will recall.   (Or someone from Columbus or Boise or wherever.)
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Immunity for Goodling?
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2007, 06:36:45 AM »
Quote
All he did was say variations of "I don't recall" over a hundred times. 
That deserves impeachment right there.  He doesn't RECALL?  Boot him out, let him go be a real estate lawyer in Texas again.  We can get someone from India or Sri Lanka who damn well will recall.   (Or someone from Columbus or Boise or wherever.)

I guess that automatically disqualifies Hillary from the highest office in the land. She had an extremely faulty memory during the Rose Law Firm hearings.

That's the problem with dog and ponyshows.

And fishing expeditions.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Immunity for Goodling?
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2007, 07:25:18 AM »
Quote
I don't know either.

I think that even the members of the jury that tryed him would be hazy on this.

I wouldn't think so. They would have had to consider him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to vote for conviction, which they obviously did. Hard to consider someone guilty of something beyond a reasonable doubt if you don't have any idea what they are guilty of, wouldn't you think? Or do you believe all those nice people were suddenly stricken with mass confusion?

What do you think of Alberto's sudden amnesia? Early Alzheimers, maybe?


No, I mean it.


I really think that the members of that jury are hazy about what crime might have happened.

That events of a previous year might be recalled poorly or out of order is in no way at all remarkable.

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Immunity for Goodling?
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2007, 04:10:25 PM »
Quote
That events of a previous year might be recalled poorly or out of order is in no way at all remarkable.

True. But that would not have precluded him from referring to notes of the meetings to refresh his memory, or stipulating that 'to the best of my recollection', or some other such qualifier, or even just admitting that he might not be sure as to specific dates, et cetera. It would appear he did not do that, and was not able to convince the jury his memory was that faulty, since they voted to convict him.

"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Immunity for Goodling?
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2007, 09:03:23 PM »
Today's Must Read
By Paul Kiel - April 23, 2007, 9:31 AM

If there's one good thing that's come out of the U.S. attorneys scandal, it's that it's shining a bright light on the Justice Department. And as a result, it's become clear that the most grossly politicized section of the department is the Civil Rights Division.

The reason is plain. As we've seen, many Republicans, and Karl Rove in particular, are obsessed with "voter fraud" -- the idea that minorities in Democratic strongholds are taking advantage of lax record systems to stuff the ballot. There's evidence that at least two of the fired U.S. attorneys were let go because they did not pursue such prosecutions. But the obsession is nothing new; it's one of the defining preoccupations of the Bush administration. The hysterical claims have led Republicans to push voter I.D. laws in several swing states -- efforts that have been backed by the White House.

It is the job of the Civil Rights Division to watchdog the voting rights of minorities. And due to the Voting Rights Act, several states cannot even enact such laws without first getting clearance from the division. So to make sure that no career staffers get in the way -- with evidence, for instance, that a voter I.D. law would disproportionately impact African Americans -- the Civil Rights Division has been gutted.

But, as McClatchy reported in detail late last week, the strategy goes beyond voter fraud. The division has made an effort to purge voter rolls while minimizing actions or programs that help register poor or minority voters, and McClatchy gave a nice rundown of the lowlights. Political appointees in the Civil Rights Division have:

    -Issued advisory opinions that overstated a 2002 federal election law by asserting that it required states to disqualify new voting registrants if their identification didn't match that in computer databases, prompting at least three states to reject tens of thousands of applicants mistakenly.

    -Done little to enforce a provision of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that requires state public assistance agencies to register voters. The inaction has contributed to a 50 percent decline in annual registrations at those agencies, to 1 million from 2 million.

    -Sued at least six states on grounds that they had too many people on their voter rolls. Some eligible voters were removed in the resulting purges.

The whole thing is worth a read, especially as a companion piece to The New York Times' excellent piece earlier this month on voter fraud.

So that's the big picture. As more comes out (and more will), keep that in mind.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003077.php
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Immunity for Goodling?
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2007, 09:13:47 PM »
Noticed that MuckRaker didn't mention the 3,000+ dead voters that voted for the Democratic candidate for the Governor of Meryland a few elections cycles ago - votes that would have been prevented with an ID setup.

Guess they're not into "fair and balanced"?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Immunity for Goodling?
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2007, 09:49:19 PM »
Noticed that MuckRaker didn't mention the 3,000+ dead voters that voted for the Democratic candidate for the Governor of Meryland a few elections cycles ago - votes that would have been prevented with an ID setup.  Guess they're not into "fair and balanced"?

OUCH
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle