Redstate

jfpurdue01, you say the Prez should come out with another statement and this time say what he should have said the first time round.
TOO LATE. I am amazed that he was advised to speak during a primetime press Q&A. He took the public from a perception that the Dems were launching another probably useless investigation to an almost certain conclusion that something must be wrong.
"No Oaths and No Transcripts" was the only thing heard, and heard directly from the President. It's hard to take that image away now.
Yes, it would have been good if he had issued a statement with simple language on the firings, "It's MY Prerogative!" But he didn't.
As for Goodling taking the 5th. Just add that to the "no oaths and no transcripts" and most minds are going to be made up even before a single Congressional hearing.

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

How else could this have been a crime?

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

First, by "crimes" I was referring to possible multiple instances of lying. However, it is also possible that instances of improper interference with on-going investigations may have taken place. I doubt if any such "crime" will be proven in a court, but the mere appearance of such impropriety is damaging to everyone involved. And that appearance already exists.

I have no idea where this investigation will lead. It may fizzle out; or it may result in criminal charges. I don't know, and neither does anyone else. To simply assume that there is nothing here, is to ignore the behavior of the AG and his subordinates so far.

Listening to some of the dismissed US Attorneys raises further questions. I don't want any administration (whether I agree with it or not) to use the Justice Department to further partisan political ends. There is a difference between setting priorities -- the prerogative of any administration -- and interfering with specific investigations. The comments of John McKay and David Iglesias (Meet the Press) are extremely troubling. If administration officials were involved in inserting politics into "the grand jury" (McKay) then I think criminal prosecutions would be in order.
See:http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/25/black-cloud-hanging-over-the-doj/

At every turn, the administration's story seems to change.

In a case like this the very integrity of the law is at stake. To allow partisanship to color one's consideration of the facts and appearances is more than problematic. That is why there are so many conservatives (maybe not here at RedState, but elsewhere) who are upset by this case. When Bill Kristol thinks a Republican Attorney General should resign, something's going on. As I said earlier, time will tell.

First, by "crimes" I was referring to possible multiple instances of lying. However, it is also possible that instances of improper interference with on-going investigations may have taken place.

It's also possible there was no improper interference. If there was any indication that there was, Democrats would be saying that instead of demanding to get to the "truth". That only means they haven't found what they are looking for yet.

To simply assume that there is nothing here, is to ignore the behavior of the AG and his subordinates so far.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying flat out that there is no indication that anyone did anything wrong here. There is every indication that this process was handled poorly with regards to the "rollout." That is not yet a crime, but give the Senate Judiciary Committee some more time.

I don't want any administration (whether I agree with it or not) to use the Justice Department to further partisan political ends. There is a difference between setting priorities -- the prerogative of any administration -- and interfering with specific investigations.

This assumes facts not in evidence.

In a case like this the very integrity of the law is at stake. To allow partisanship to color one's consideration of the facts and appearances is more than problematic. That is why there are so many conservatives (maybe not here at RedState, but elsewhere) who are upset by this case. When Bill Kristol thinks a Republican Attorney General should resign, something's going on. As I said earlier, time will tell.

Spare me. The integrity of the law is not at stake. The only people acting in a partisan way here are the Democrats. Indeed. I wish the President would act in a more partisan fashion. As for Bill Kristol, since when does he speak for Republicans or conservatives as a group? I certainly don't take my cues from him, although I respect his opinions as far more informed than mine. However, I am not prepared to argue that Republicans should roll over and allow the Democrats free reign to hound out of office an Administration official who has done nothing wrong because they and some fired political appointees don't like the way in which they were fired, just because Bill Kristol is upset about.

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

M I: It's also possible there was no improper interference. If there was any indication that there was, Democrats would be saying that instead of demanding to get to the "truth". That only means they haven't found what they are looking for yet.

EM: Yes, it is possible. That’s what investigations are for. The Democrats don’t need to make accusations (which at this time they couldn’t back up with evidence), fired Republican US Attorneys are. Since at least some of these attorneys may be honorable people, I think their concerns are worth looking into.

M I: I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying flat out that there is no indication that anyone did anything wrong here.

EM: And I disagree. We need more information. You're trying to pretend that there is a "fact" that there are no indications of wrongdoing. Others don't see it that way.

M I: There is every indication that this process was handled poorly with regards to the "rollout." That is not yet a crime, but give the Senate Judiciary Committee some more time.

EM: We agree that the process was handled poorly. Apparently, you think it was simple incompetence (a definite possibility), but I think there may be more involved. We need more information. The implication that the Senate Judiciary Committee will “create” a crime or “discover” one where none exists is, I believe, a stretch. They aren't in a position to have a secret trial. They seem to be arguing for conducting the investigation in the open, on the record, and under oath.
Why not?

Old EM: I don't want any administration (whether I agree with it or not) to use the Justice Department to further partisan political ends. There is a difference between setting priorities -- the prerogative of any administration -- and interfering with specific investigations.

M I: This assumes facts not in evidence.

EM: Since we’re not in court, this is nothing more that an irrelevant rhetorical flourish. I stated my opinion about how I want Justice Departments to behave. I have reason – not proof – to believe, based on statements made by former US Attorneys, as well as observations of the way this has been handled by the administration that the Justice Department may not have behaved in such a manner. I don’t believe I’m the only one who thinks that US Attorneys should not be instruments of political convenience and partisanship. I want assurance that no administration uses the justice system in such a way.

Old EM: In a case like this the very integrity of the law is at stake. To allow partisanship to color one's consideration of the facts and appearances is more than problematic. That is why there are so many conservatives (maybe not here at RedState, but elsewhere) who are upset by this case. When Bill Kristol thinks a Republican Attorney General should resign, something's going on. As I said earlier, time will tell.

M I: Spare me. The integrity of the law is not at stake. The only people acting in a partisan way here are the Democrats. Indeed. I wish the President would act in a more partisan fashion. As for Bill Kristol, since when does he speak for Republicans or conservatives as a group? I certainly don't take my cues from him, although I respect his opinions as far more informed than mine. However, I am not prepared to argue that Republicans should roll over and allow the Democrats free reign to hound out of office an Administration official who has done nothing wrong because they and some fired political appointees don't like the way in which they were fired, just because Bill Kristol is upset about.

EM: This paragraph is filled with suppositions and wishful thinking. I think you would have a difficult time finding any instance where either party -- through Congressional hearings -- hounded anyone who “had done nothing wrong” (doesn’t that assume “facts not in evidence?”) out of office. Naturally, if one assumes that members of one or the other political party are always or automatically innocent or guilty of partisanship or wrongdoing, fruitful discussion is impossible.

And, of course, I haven’t argued that the reason to do anything should be based on what upsets Bill Kristol. I think the main difference between you and me is that you seem to be willing to come to conclusions in the absence of evidence (and apparently you don’t want to see that evidence if it exists), and I want to see the results of an open, honest investigation before I decide that no one has done anything wrong. There is more than a vague appearance that Gonzales and other officials have not always told the truth. There is, to me and others, a reasonable suspicion that there was something at least very strange about the firings. If all they were is strange, then no problem.

Should Gonzales resign? That’s both a legal and a political question. The legal side can’t yet be answered. The political side is for the administration to decide. There are certainly a growing number of Republicans who have expressed doubt about the attorney general. I join them.

And I do believe the integrity of the law is at stake. I reserve the right to politely disagree.

You're trying to pretend that there is a "fact" that there are no indications of wrongdoing.

The facts are out there. The WH and the DOJ has released an unprecedented amount of internal agency and inter-agency communication on this matter, and still, the Democrats want more. No, I stand by my assertion that there is no indication of wrongdoing. If there were, the Dems wouldn't be calling for more information, they would be persuing their "investigation" to its conclusions.

I don’t believe I’m the only one who thinks that US Attorneys should not be instruments of political convenience and partisanship. I want assurance that no administration uses the justice system in such a way.

Except when Clinton fired every USAtty, including one who was investigating him no one even blinked an eye. The Bush Justice Department fires eight, and suddenly the "integrity of the law" is at stake.

I think the main difference between you and me is that you seem to be willing to come to conclusions in the absence of evidence (and apparently you don’t want to see that evidence if it exists), and I want to see the results of an open, honest investigation before I decide that no one has done anything wrong. There is more than a vague appearance that Gonzales and other officials have not always told the truth. There is, to me and others, a reasonable suspicion that there was something at least very strange about the firings. If all they were is strange, then no problem.

No, the main difference seems to be that you are unwilling to accept the evidence that is already out there, and are convinced that there must have been some wrongdoing absent any indication in the available documentation. But I think you might be right after all. The Bush Justice Department was so intent on politicizing the Untied States Attorneys, that it went through a painstaking 2 year long process of reviewing the work of every USAtty and then decided to fire only eight of them.

You, of course, are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. There is no scandal here. There would not have been even if the president fired all 93 USAttys, just like his predecessor did. It was not a scandal then, it is not one now. This is a fishing expedition in a dry lake bed, and I call BS.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

From Findlaw:

"The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives individuals the right to refuse to answer any questions or make any statements, when to do so would help establish that the person committed a crime or is connected to any criminal activity."

Without any suspicion on the part of her lawyer that this in fact will be the case - and not just the perjury trap, either, that's not sufficient for the 5th - Goodling would not be taking this step. Just another event to fan the flames of this scandal a little higher.

or law school for that matter, but even I can tell you that any jury in the country would be instructed not to take a Fifth Amendment refusal to answer a question as indicative of guilt. I guess Leahy and Conyers were absent that day from Con Law calss. Their treatment of this announcement is shameful and beneath contempt.

"It is disappointing that Ms. Goodling has decided to withhold her important testimony from the committee as it pursues its investigation into this matter, but everybody has the constitutional right not to incriminate themselves with regard to criminal conduct," Leahy said in a written statement. "The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath."

Goodling's decision to plead the Fifth Amendment "raises even more questions concerning the potential misconduct and legal violations by the administration in this ongoing scandal," said Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who leads the House Judiciary Committee. That committee also wanted to hear Goodling's testimony on the firing.

If I were her lawyer, I wouldn't let my client in the same room with these guys even if she was the Virgin Mary.

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

Goodling doesn't have an option, and by taking the 5th she's pretty much guaranteeing that her career at the DoJ is over.

Taking the 5th is not direct evidence of guilt, but at the same time, it isn't something that innocent people do. Period.

The court of public opinion is just as important as the court of law in this case - more so. Leahy is correct that taking the fifth is seen as an admission of at least some guilt in our society, no matter what a judge would tell a jury. The image of her taking the 5th over, and over, and over plays right into Dem hands in the media.

do it, I probably wouldn't opt to testify before a grand jury, if I was innocent, and new I was a target of an investigation, given the lack of protection before the grand jury.

I do think you are right that the public perception is that only guilty people take the fifth, and I even think that while taking the fifth isn't supposed to be evidence of guilt, somewhere in the back of a jurors head is the idea that an innocent person would have takent the stand.

All that said, I would be reluctant to testify over what time my dog's were fed, much less anything important before this congress. I personally would rather have the cops doing an investigation than and deal with them, than congress.

Or did you forget? C'mon, admit it, you forgot again, didn't you?

At least if you testified before a Senate committee, you'd be testifying in public, and public perceptions are important in any hearing held by elected officials.

I'm not really sure what people seem to think the Senate can or will do to someone who testifies honestly. Neither am I aware of the record of Senators (D or R) railroading people who testify before Senate committees.

Do you know something I don't? Isn't there a chance that this is a bit of an overreation?

Goodling's attorney disagrees.

The line [Leahy's] about wondering what Goodling was hiding was too much for her lawyer, who immediately shot off a letter saying that "your comment ignores the very basis on which Ms. Goodling has asserted her constitutional right... the Fifth Amendment protects innocent persons who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances, as much as it protects those who may have done something wrong." [his emphasis]

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

And here I thought he would have agreed that his client MUST be guilty of something.

Now, if he HAD gone to Findlaw:

" No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

I don't see the word 'innocent' in there anywhere, actually. Must be his personal interpretation.

That was your personal interpretation, not a legal construct, which was my point.

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

but there's little doubt that public perception tends to lean towards the 5th amendment being utilized by those who have something to hide. It is entirely possible that I am wrong; it should be apparent relatively quickly after the testimony is concluded, so we shall see soon enough.

There's no court in the United States where one can interpret taking the 5th as an indication of guilt. This has been true since the foundation of the Republic.

Except, of course, the court of public opinion.

That should tell you, along with Leahy's bogus line, which court they're trying this in. They have nothing and they know it; but with the tacit (and sometimes not so tacit) approval of the media, they can push any amount of bogosity at us all and try to get as many people as they can to swallow this Whopper.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

but this latest episode of shameless political grandstanding hearing initiated by congressional Democrats is not a criminal trial, and guilt or innocence will not be decided in front of either judicial committee.

Ms. Goodling's attorney is spot on in his decision to respect the Libby Precedent.™ One would rightly expect him to do everything within his power to assure that his client does not provide the basis for a criminal trial where none exists, including counseling Ms. Goodling on her Fifth Amendment rights.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

The fifth amendment doesn't apply to questions of partisanship, or to possible perjury counts. I don't believe that Ms. Goodling can take the 5th unless she is specifically trying to avoid self-incrimination for a specific crime.

Unless she is doing that, she's just Obstructing Justice and trying to use a pretty excuse. In fact, the 'perjury' angle is even weaker than that - the committee itself cannot charge anyone with perjury at all. All they can do is refer it... to the Department of Justice :)

By exercising her Constitutional Rights? Please respond as soon as you have returned from traffic court having turned yourself in for multiple counts of speeding. Wouldn't want to Obstruct Justice, now would you?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

situation. You can take the 5th if you've formed a reasonable belief that your testimony might incriminate you. Congress can then immunize you and hold you in contempt if you continue to refuse. They can't clap you in irons like a DA can, but they can make your life a living Hell. It's a two edged sword and what ultimately saved Col. North from prison; he'd testified under a grant of immunity by Congress and then the government tried to prosecute him based on that testimony. It's more subtle than that and I'm working from memory, but that's the gist of it.

Hauling people before grand juries and granting immunity in order to compel testimony is one of the most abused judicial processes we have. It is very easy for a prosecutor to quite literally destroy someone - just because he can.

In Vino Veritas

Her lawyer also said that he believed that Congress's mind was made up on the issue and that there wasn't any light his client's testimony could shed on the matter. Under those circumstances, seems like pretty solid legal advice to me.

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

In the 15 second sound-bite media the explaination will get lost, and all people will hear is that a DOJ council took the fifth when asked to testify.

Further, I don't really think that the administration did anything particularly illigal, but the more they try to explain, the worse it sounds to the media and public. Gonzales brought this upon himself.

scandal, however I will agree with you that the administration sure enough stepped into the doo doo to help along the manufacturing.

shouldn't you (and everyone) wait for an investigation before being convinced that this is a manufactured scandal?

At first I thought the administration was just clumsy, but as the days have passed and details have come out in dribs and drabs, I now think there may well have been something wrong with the firings themselves. I'm not convinced. And I don't know that we will ever know for certain. But I think it is worth investigating. Since the Democrats are in the majority that's who will push the investigation. However, I think the whole country would benefit if the Republicans joined them and got to the bottom of this.

Then, if the firings turned out to be improper (e.g., done because John McKay refused to continue a voter fraud investigation in light of his professional opinion that there was an absence of evidence of such fraud -- his characterization, not mine) and/or if Justice Dept. officials lied to Congress, then appropriate action could be taken and the entire country would be better off. On the other hand, if there was no persuasive or conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the whole incident could be put behind us. Instead, everyone demonizes everyone else and we get nowhere.

However, the lesson that no one in Washington seems to learn is that what you do after an event (I'm intentionally not saying "crime") is critical. In this case, claiming that the firings were "performance based," implying that apparently competent people with good to excellent performance ratings were deficient in their job duties seems quite dishonest and raises the question why they offered an "excuse" instead of a reason.

The truth is not something any of us should fear, and if both parties cooperated in finding it...sorry, I've dropped off into fantasyland.

I have read a lot here, and mostly at various left leaning websites on this issue.

I am still pretty convinced that it is manufactured.

Handled poorly by the administration? Yes, but illegal, criminal, or even really unethical, I am not so convinced of.

Sorry, but pretty much "manufactured scandal" is what comes to mind.

I think the AG has handled this poorly.

But the reality is that these attornies had no job security, they were political appointees that serve as long as the president wants them too.

Of course your use of the word "improper" is loaded and lends itself to a partisan bent both sufficiently vague and sinister. The "raises the question" bit is always the follow up to more of the same, fuel for an essentially legal act that can be turned for, yes, political purposes.

The problem with the drips and drabs is that they don't alter the fundamental fact of a legal act, the attorneys could be fired and they could be fired for both performance and political reasons.

If clumsiness were a crime we might find Nancy Pelosi in Pelican Island, although I daresay she would have company from both parties.

I might add that your overworked condescension on the Libby comment comes across a bit too obtuse. Recall Oliver North's limited immunity and where that led. Recall also that Senators and Representatives read newspapers. Roll the words "perjury trap" around in your mind.

But I am in favor of more cooperation between parties and in that spirit may I suggest cooperation in reopening the Sandy Berger theft and the very real possibility of his committing perjury as to reasons and acts relating to his heist.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

might conclude "Then, if the firings turned out to be improper (e.g., done because John McKay refused to continue a voter fraud investigation in light of his professional opinion that there was an absence of evidence of such fraud"

That if voter fraud was pointed out by citizens:
that a statement from some AG that he did not believe it warranted further investigation is just not sufficient. Where is one supposed to go with voter fraud evidence? Does anyone really think that a Democrat Congress is going to investigate a situation where the submitted evidence shows that a Democrat governor was seated because fraud gave her a 129 vote lead, after who know how many recounts. Recounts that included financing from Sen Kerry's campaign and the Democratic National Party.

Where the counting was done by members of the Teamsters union.
"was treated like any other employee. I had to join the Teamsters union, the bargaining unit for King County elections workers (and, for you conspiracy theorists to chew on, a union that supports mostly Democratic candidates). I signed a form allowing the Teamsters to deduct 1.3 percent of my $12.70 hourly wage. "

There is no way a reasonable person would conclude that this
matter could be honestly decided by a Senate committee headed by Democrats.

in Washington during the last gubernatorial election and I was repulsed by the behavior of prominent members of both parties.

However, what I found most disturbing was the notion that Dino Rossi had won the election after the initial count. (And there weren't "who knows how many recounts." There were the exact number specified by the law, which Rossi apparently voted for when he was in the legislature.)

Elections aren't best out of three affairs; a candidate doesn't win the election until the counting (as prescribed by law) is complete. The election was overseen by a Republican Secretary of State, Sam Reed, whom, while not perfect, I have found to be reasonable and reliable (in doing his job, not in delivering an election to a "client"), and the subsequent court case was presided over by a Republican judge. I have no illusions about how Democrats would have behaved had the situation been reversed.

There is no question that there were irregularities (on both sides), but increasingly elections in the US resemble those of a third world country more than an advanced, mature democracy, and there are virtually no elections anymore, if there ever were, that don't have irregularities. I followed the events and I was satisfied with the fairness of the outcome. My candidate doesn't have to win for an outcome to be fair.

John McKay is, by all accounts an honest, competent attorney, who reviewed the evidence (or lack of evidence as he put it) of voter fraud and decided there was no case to be pursued. That's what US Attorneys are hired to do. I can think of no plausible reason why someone of McKay's stature would ignore a case like that if there were sufficient evidence to warrant further action. This now enters the realm of conspiracy theory.

There are always "citizens" with proof of wrongdoing -- like the guy who came forward and admitted that although his wife had died before the election, he had gone ahead and voted for her (and Dino Rossi and George Bush) anyway. Yeah, he knew it was wrong, but it was what she would have wanted. She would have wanted him to commit a felony? I hope not. As far as I know, this admitted felon was not tried for his crime.

I was fascinated (and depressed) by the rhetoric, so I did a little analysis of the election results. King County came in for the most vitriol, but it turned out that in four counties favoring Rossi (Clark, Kitsay, Pierce, and Snohomish) there were 1,341 more discrepancies than in King County.

The press was irresponsible in the way it reported the election results. Rossi didn't win anything after the initial count. He was ahead. After the last count he was behind and thus had lost the election -- pending the outcome of legal action, which went against him.

Those who place partisanship above fairness will always believe that the 2004 election was stolen. I'm satisfied it was not.

Note: I acted as an observer during the manual recounts and from what I observed the final manual count was more accurate that the machine count. Numerous discrepancies were found and agreed to by all present.

reports of voter fraud by citizens
are still not being investigated.

The following is from the soundpolitics.com post titled:
No Evidence of Elections Crimes dated 13 Mar 2007 Posted by Stefan Sharkansky

"Today's Seattle Times reports that John McKay insists that there was no evidence of election crimes in Washington's November 2004 election. Granted, he appears to have relied solely on what the Republican legal team presented in the contest trial. And we now know that King County sandbagged discovery requests and stonewalled public records requests, and the schedule simply didn't permit the litigants to force King County to produce all of the evidence in time for the trial. Here is a summary of what I've found in the 21 months after the trial ended:"

One needs to click on the link to see the chart. I tried to
reproduce it here but it doesn't print out correctly.

361 documented suspected illegal votes are shown.

The King county election officials, the Washington State Sec of State and the US Attorney McKay just claim there is no evidence of fraud. Why not report why these are not voter fraud, if someone investigated and found they truly weren't? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?

My personal opinion, the entire Washington State election process is currently set up so that no one can identify who is legally entitled to vote and to prevent anyone from learning how many times voters voted. The fact that only one illegal vote is shown as having been traced down, and that the only apparent reason, it was traced down was that it was a vote in favor of the Republicans does not give me any confidence that there was no voter fraud.

After what happened to Libby, you would be an idiot not to plead the fifth when called before a Democratic witch hunt.

the answer to each and every question they ask - especially "what is your political affiliation?" would have to be, "I plead the 5th"...there's no other way to deal with people who WILL prosecute you for perjury for having a bad memory while you were trying to be truthful

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

the last time I heard someone ask "what is your political affiliation?" to someone under oath in Congress, it was a Republican senator asking Valerie Plame.

'senator' should have read 'congressman'

The last time I checked Libby's problems had nothing to do with the Senate, Democrats, or hearings. He lied during an investigation brought by a Republican (but we hope non-partisan) US Attorney.

I just checked and unless someone was using an alias there were no Senators (from either party) on the Libby jury.

prosecutorial misconduct and leftwing media persecution, just like the Duke kids. You see, there are liberals/Democrats/leftists that have no morals, ethics or respect for what is right and lawful. They will abuse whatever power they have to advance their evil agendas. They hate America, they hate good, they hate honesty, they hate bravery and honor and all because they really hate themselves for being spiritually bankrupt. So why should anyone needlessly subject themselves of the tyranny of this type of human scum?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

the silliest posting I've ever read on any web site I've ever visited.

And your evidence for all your hyperbolic characterizations is...

Oh, never mind, I know better than to ask.

I still hold to the same principle about wasting time...bye.

Bet they won't even need any breaking in.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

is a well supported, reasoned and constructive argument. You forgot to point out that the Democratic party is a large part of the axis of evil.

Human Scum?

Is this boner for real?

I have often wondered much the same thing many times over the years. The answer is never comforting.

and Jon Coward Cary so he got to appoint who he wanted. Too bad. Maybe they should go work/suck-up-to Barackorama.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.