What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
75 Comments
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+64Okay, seriously. Someone needs to come up with a nice little chart or table that maps out each scandal plaguing this administration and an RSS feed when a new development arises. It's hard trying to keep track by myself.
- martel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38I eagerly await ScandalTracker1.0.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36Ah, it's not that hard to sort the important stuff from the rest. You just look for the places where the Republicans say "nothing to see here," like some warped version of "these aren't the droids you're looking for."
This episode is important, not because Goodling will willingly out anyone, but because she won't have much of a choice once she's offered immunity. She won't be able to invoke the 5th anymore. And refusing to answer questions under subpoena could result in contempt charges.
She could play the "I don't remember" card, but I don't think that's going to fly this time. She handled the details of the firings. They need to ask her what's in those missing emails (and where they are), as well as establish a clear link from the White House's tentacles into important and supposedly a-political law enforcement inside the DOJ.
If she stonewalls, I'd love to see her spend time in jail for contempt of congress. Enough with the ***** excuses. - FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Man hasn't yet invented computers powerful enough to track all of this administration's scandals.
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24You have to admit, the Republican strategy is genious. Flood the American people with so many scandals they can't keep up. Who would've thought that would work?
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19If she can't recall, I think three months in jail should jog her memory. Congress has the power to hold her in contempt.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18My thoughts exactly. I googled for "list of all scandals" and "bush", and there are plenty of lists, e.g...
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/index.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_scandals
...but none is complete.
By my reckoning the administration is batting an average of 1 scandal every 2 weeks, meaning no single scandal ever manages to play out fully before the next one hits. - ViktorVaughn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Um, they already did that.
The eight that were fired were hired by the Bush administration.
I hate it when people get on here without all the facts and spout their uninformed opinions like the were 100% true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy - Chickenlip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14She wasn't 'Offered' immunity, she was given immunity ... big difference. By giving immunity, they can FORCE her to testify. The 5th amendment gives you the right to refuse to incriminate yourself. Since, now, it is actually impossible for her to incriminate herself, she can no longer stand with the 5th amendment, and will be forced to spill the beans ...
I was tempted to bury this as inaccurate due to the title, but I spose people need to know this stuff... - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@Entropyman: She'll not stonewall, she'll develop stress-induced amnesia. The administration has already shown several times that they favor the "I don't remember" defence - no doubt because it's the one way there is of dodging questions where it is near impossible to be either in contempt or proven a liar.
She'll remember only things which are on record or known by people who'd volunteer info to the committee. - ViktorVaughn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Where the ***** did that come from?
How is asking people to tell the truth racist/misogynist?
Maybe when I get into power, I should just surround myself with minorities and then I'll be immune to critisism and oversight. - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@markthewiz: "At least the Democrats are using the Republicans tactics against them. Grant someone immunity and they'll drop dime."
Hopefully, they'll remember to only offer immunity in exchange for truthful testimony this time. The last time the Dems gave someone in the White House immunity in order to compel them to testify, Oliver North lied his ass off about Iran-Contra and bragged about it later. This, of course, made him a hero to the same people that thought Clinton should be impeached for lying a decade later. - ectocooler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Breaking: Stop putting 'breaking' in the title of your diggs. It makes you look like an idiot.
- floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6it seems the Dem's forgot about Oliver North
They gave him immunity thinking they would get Regan. It backfired when North said he did it without Regan knowing about it. which let Regan off the hook.
Congress tried to bust his chops for doing that
North was tried in 1988 in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service.However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the ACLU (see [1]), North's conviction was overturned by a three-judge appeals panel in advance of further proceedings on the grounds that his public testimony may have prejudiced his right to a fair trial.[3]
The Supreme Court declined to review the case, and Judge Gesell dismissed all charges against North on September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of the independent counsel.Essentially, North's convictions were overturned because he had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, and this testimony was deemed to have influenced witnesses at his trial.
History may repeat it self
- AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I can't believe are STILL spouting out this *****.
You people remind of little kids who, not knowing anything, still pretend like they know the entire details.
People like you, who fall under 'idiotic and uninformed people' should not be allowed to vote. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Is it any less true? But I'm not digging you down for that, I'm digging you down because I just know you think you're clever for rhyming stink with think.
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Ah-Oh Gonzo.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Edit/ Vik you beat me to it. Loved Vaudville Villain, BTW.
Holy ***** you've GOT to be kidding me. Is this the new Malkin/LGF talking point for the day? That Dems are a lot of racists?
Do you even take off your hood to see what you've typed analyze? - elcidcannon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I just want to hear what she has to say.
- Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Democrats are looking like racists & misogynists--they go after a Latino (Gonzales), Rice (African-American), and women (Rice & Goodling). Where is Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and the rest of the screaming liberals? ...oh wait, these guys are Republicans so it must be OK to be a racists, misogynistic Democrat and pick on minorities."
I think that's the dumbest post I've read all week. I'm actually blown away by the pure stupidity of that childish, naive rant. - johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm with Entropyman on this one: "She could play the "I don't remember" card, but I don't think that's going to fly this time. She handled the details of the firings."
Gonzales excuse has been "Oh, well, I wasn't involved in that - I must have just signed the paper or something". Either she was the one who said "We are going to fire X for this reason Y", and know what Y is - or else the firings were for no reason at all, and then - why fire them?
With more information that both Carol Lam and Paul Charlton were fired just as they were looking into where the Abramoff investigations were going (after being stonewalled for months), it's looking more and more like there was at least some cases of obstruction of justice being behind the firings. - youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So now that she has immunity couldn't she just take full blame for it now? If she takes the blame then there is no one else to investigate, right?
- thanakar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hardly breaking news, this story is already a day old.
- g026r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Especially since they often don't become popular until a day or more after they get submitted, thereby rendering the "Breaking" part inaccurate.
- ThisIsBob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Waterboard the bitch. Her boss said it was legal.
- swifty383, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would totally do Monica Goodling.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're assuming "the voters" are the ones who put Bush in office.
- okaroleo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The way firings work is it's a tradition (i think even before Nixon) for US Attorneys to file resignation papers when new administration comes to power. It is assumed that the president will accept all except 1 or two if that attorney is in the middle of high profile case which most often happens in NY.
Bush Jr. , Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, etc... didn't create this system, they all followed tradition.
It's not easy to fire US Attorney unless they are seriously incompetent or harass coworkers.
Only one president fired 8 at the same time without clear "why".
"Buckle your seatbelt Barney... this is going to be a bumpy ride..." - DeucesWild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why stop at Gonzo? Hopefully her Messiah college "fighting Christie" arse can deliver the goods on that rat weasel Rove.
- stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ahhh.... Monica "goodey-goodey" fascist Barbi Doll. Straight out of that Madrassa created by Pat Robertson, where he brainwashes kids so they can grow up and become good little brownshirts, who ask no questions and follow orders promptly. Please pass the popcorn....
- Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's "Karl" - with a "K". Or "MC Rove", if you prefer.
Also, why would you believe Saddam was a "gentle old man"?
You are strange and off-putting. - 1wy1dange1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2JCSaint...there is a Bush-Admin scandal-tracker. It's commonly called the, "Front Page of Digg." Just do a Digg search, and you'll read about all sorts of scandals, real and imagined.
- DieGOPNazis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3President Elects should be given blowjobs at the swearing-in ceremony to get it out of the way. GOP Nazis get all riled up over BJs, but could care less about wars built on lies.
- DieGOPNazis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Note to White House Chief of Staff: DON'T HIRE ANYONE NAMED MONICA. THEY ARE TROUBLE.
- obliviousfool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The executive branch is trying to manage the judicial branch for obvious political gain. Don't prosecute enough Democrats during the elections? That's a firing. Prosecute a Republican? That's a firing. Need prosecutors who will turn a blind eye in swings states for the '08 elections? If you don't fit the bill, that's a firing.
One of the things that upset Congress was that the Patriot Act allows (allowed) the President to make recess appointments of US attorneys without congressional oversight. They are closing that loophole as we discuss this. If they would have read the bill in the first place we wouldn't have this mess.
We have checks and balances for a reason. If a US attorney is pressured into prosecuting a politician during an election cycle he has just become an election commercial paid for by the taxpayer, not an efficient force of justice. - Chickenlip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's happened before ... see the comment thread directly below this one about Oliver North ...
- member57, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@EntropyMan
Yes voter did, and yes we regret it..
I do not like Gonzales, he should be canned, not just for the firings, but the trampling of the Constitution. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Somehow, District Attorneys can grant immunity to witnesses to bring down bigger fish and yet not get screwed by it. I don't know exactly what it takes, but I would at the very least make the immunity conditional on whether or not her testimony helps to bring others to justice, and of course, whether the testimony is truthful. I don't see why they can't tie it to perjury, so if she's later convicted of perjury (which is not covered regardless), she'd lose the general immunity, even retroactively.
But I don't know the fine details of how it works in Congress. We'll have to see. - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not sure if you can revoke it. To have congress say we will cover you and then say "never mind" if they don't like what you say I don't think a court would buy that. Also the ACLU is watching. They were no friend of North or Regan but believed the immunity should have covered him.
As for the emails ...she could say she nuked them
Remember any thing she says is immune even if it points to another crime. With North congress said " well we would have found out anyway " the court didn't believe them - DieGOPNazis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In the White House, staff call her Monica Goodhead. You don't get to the #3 post in the DOJ with a law degree from Pat Robertson's Law School. Well, maybe you do. A fired horse show director became head of FEMA and a state lottery commissioner almost became a Supreme Court judge.
- phaed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well a computer hundreds of years into the future will churn out 42. Long after they forgot the question: The number of scandals of the Bush Administration.
- MexiNig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So even if she does testify they (congress) still seem to be powerless. Gonzales has shown he wont resign and Bush isnt going to make him. Perhaps is she tells them she gave him a blowjob they will impeach him?
- knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jesus washed the feet of the destitute.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Anal-eyes, protecting criminals with the "race card" is the most racist thing you can possibly do. If you doubt me, why don't you go run your theory up the GOP flagpole and see how quickly even _they_ shoot it down?
Seriously, who do you even bother typing this *****? You're not fooling anyone. Does it make you feel better? - stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well if what you say is true, why all the emotion?
- AtomicBeagle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good points by both. It really illustrates the fact that there's some serious broken ***** in the system; and I, for one, have no clue how it can be fixed...
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You may be right. But Conyers doesn't have much choice. He last to let it play out as it will, except maybe he can better revoke the immunity this time if/when she perjures herself.
The key thing is to catch her in a contradiction, e.g., if she takes "credit" for the whole mess, then why did Gonzales already take responsibility? And if she takes the blame, then where are those emails that prove her claims? - stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I believe she was Gollum's double.
- ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Condi should be imprisoned for being criminally ugly.
- member57, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@diegopnazis
Damn, Godwin's Law so quick? -
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is