Reply With Quote
Here are the search results for the word "guilty" in this thread:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/search.php?searchid=413606
You're waiting for me to say Gonzales is guilty, because I never said that.Hey Chumpy Monkey... I'm still waiting for the proof you have that shows Gonzales is guilty.Are you saying it warrants investigation? Yes or no.I never said it doesn't warrant investigation.Nope, you inferred that.You claim he is guilty.It's "straight" and why are you spending so much energy trying to convince yourself how 99++++ smart you are?Technical skills are my specialty. I suck at English. I was a strait A student except for English.
Here are the search results for the word "guilty" in this thread:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/search.php?searchid=413606
You're right. You didn't say he was guilty. However, your points of view only lead to such a conclusion that he is because you dismiss the possibility that the only clear testimony against him, Mr. Comey's, has no need to be challenged. If you would have agreed earlier that Comey should also be investigated for perjury, I would not have assumed you to believe Gonzales is guilty. You do believe that without doubt, don't you? I'm right, aren't I?
I'm not meaning to say this warrants an investigation on it's own. I don't think there is any merit from the March 10 incident for an investigation. There was no motive for a lie. The IG office was already doing their job in investigation the firings. Now in these cases, I believe there was no wrongdoing, but internal complaints do warrant an IG investigation to the firings. If an IG investigation was not being conducted under the cir stances of the firings, then the IG office would be derelict in their duties. Patrick Leahy requested an IG investigation citing five items. The IG was already investigating some of the five items as normal policy. I don't recall reading that this March 10th incident will become a part of the investigation by the IG. Was that reported anywhere? Wait a minute... It wasn't even part of the five items noted by Leahy! He's not even asking the IG to look into it.
No, I implied he was innocent. I kept asking you for information showing otherwise and you refused. If I could get the evidence you claim to have, maybe I'll take a different stance. As for mixing the words up before, no I didn't.
You are wrong here. By implied statements, I meant what you read from the leftist propaganda of the mainstream media. You appear to be unable to parse out the truth from suggestive words and patterns they use. Same with leading questions during the hearings. I'll claim guilt for not being specific enough for small minds to understand. The media suggests guilt, but has nothing that actually bears such a claim out. Your inferring it is the basically the same as you saying he is guilty, isn't it?
God WC, give it up already........Gonzales was a lousy AG...
Good Riddance
LinkWhen historians look back upon the disastrous tenure of Alberto R. Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States they will ask not only why he merited the job in the first place but why he lasted in it as long as he did. By any reasonable standard, the Gonzales Era at the Justice Department is void of almost all redemptive qualities. He brought shame and disgrace to the Department because of his lack of independent judgment on some of the most vital legal issues of our time. And he brought chaos and confusion to the department because of his lack of respectable leadership over a cabinet-level department among the most important in the nation.
He neither served the longstanding role as "the people's attorney" nor fully met and tamed his duties and responsibilities to the Cons ution. He was a man who got the job not because he was supremely qualified or notably well-respected among the leading legal lights of our time, but because he had faithfully and with blind obedience served President George W. Bush for years in Texas (where he botched clemency memos in death penalty cases) and then as White House counsel (where he botched the nation's legal policy on torture).
For an administration known for its cronyism, and alas for an alarmingly incompetent group of cronies, Gonzales was the granddaddy of them all. He lacked the integrity, the intellect and the independence to perform his duties in a manner befitting the job for which he was chosen. And when he and his colleagues got caught in the act, his rationales and explanations for the purge of the U.S. Attorneys were so empty and shallow and incoherent that even the staunchest Republicans could not turn them into steeled spin. Devoid of any credibility, Gonzales in the end was a sad joke when he came to Capitol Hill.
Even before the Justice Department was exposed under his reign as a politicized den of ideology, Gonzales' work as Attorney General was unacceptable and unworthy of high office. He defended the cons utionality of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program even though many conservative and liberal legal scholars alike considered it to be a violation of the law. He endorsed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which did away with important rights not just for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay but for legal aliens within the borders of the United States. Thus did Gonzales fail to exercise any sort of independent check and balance upon the White House's most controversial legal policies.
Meanwhile, according to the National Association of Police Chiefs and Sheriffs, big-city murder rates have risen by 10 percent over the past two years -- a period that coincides precisely with Gonzales' time as attorney general. The Federal Bureau of Investigation puts the violent crime increase at 3.7% for January-June 2006 and drug use (and production and sales) apparently are on the rise in the nation's heartland. And the Justice Department's record of terror-related prosecutions is a mixed one at best. Thus did Gonzales fail to succeed at the most fundamental task of chief law enforcement official -- to make crime less not more prevalent.
And all the while, Gonzales' Justice Department was crumbling from within, devastated by a cynical strategy of minimizing the role of career nonpartisan professionals within the Department in favor of young ideologues, mediocre attorneys and just plain party hacks. The U.S. Attorney scandal is just the most publicized example of this daring effort to make the Justice Department a house organ for the Bush administration. Less visible career attorneys were pushed out at the expense of rank partisans willing to toe the company line. Even the internship programs for law students were schooled to favor "right" thinking attorneys at the expense of others. One law school, founded by Pat Robertson and rated among the worst in the nation, became a feeder school for the Department. And it was all part of a plan.
If Gonzales knew this was occurring, and allowed it to unfold anyway, then he conspired to participate in one of the worst structural disasters in the history of the Justice Department. And if the Attorney General truly did not know this power game inside his Department was occurring, or why, or how, then surely it is because he did not want to know. See no evil. Hear no evil. Thus did Gonzales preside over the gutting of the Justice Department, turning it in the span of just a few years from a respected ins ution into a spectacle of rank intellectual corruption.
The pattern here is not hard to see. President Bush elevated to the position of Attorney General a friend and loyal supporter whose record in public office suggested even then that he would not be up to the job. And, in turn, Gonzales and his immediate subordinates elevated to the Department lower-level attorneys who by training and temperament were not likely to be up to their jobs -- or at least not as qualified as the professionals they were chosen to replace. The first bad choice begat a series of other bad choices and together they led us to the unhappy place we find ourselves today.
Because we all benefit from a Justice Department that is fair, impartial, nonpartisan and filled with the best and brightest legal professionals the nation has to offer, we all suffer when it falls short of those ideals. The Justice Department under Gonzales was a miserable failure -- it never even came close to those lofty goals -- and now, finally, it is gone. Good riddance to it.
You also might want to read:
Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie: Gonzales' Top Six Fibs
Gone Gone Gone, He's Been Gonzo Long
You're right. You didn't say he was guilty.SO it only took how many days for you to get this?
What? Both statements are going to be investigated. That's what happens in investigations.If you would have agreed earlier that Comey should also be investigated for perjury, I would not have assumed you to believe Gonzales is guilty.Someone learned a new word today!No, I implied he was innocent.Right, because it's all lies -- nothing in the mainstream media could possibly be true. You get your weather reports from right wing blogs.I meant what you read from the leftist propaganda of the mainstream media.The media points out the problems with Gonzo, problems that are being investigated.The media suggests guiltThat is not my inference. I understand that there are notable problems with Gonzo's testimony that are easily explained and understood and they could well be criminal. I'm content to have it investigated and let the chips fall where they may. You have already exonerated him after your exhaustive investigation of right wing blogs. Who is really prejudiced here?Your inferring it is the basically the same as you saying he is guilty, isn't it?
Hey, your at ude, considering what you said and didn't say, was that he was guilty. Even though you never said it. That is what I went by. You never said otherwise as I questioned the issue and you refused to give me evidence I asked for. You're a real .
I hope so, but the senate seems only to question Gonzales. They lead Mueller, and fail to ask necessary questions of Comey. You think they will investigate Comey with the same zeal as they investigate Gonzalas? I doubt any word of Comey's testimony not matching Mueller's and Gonzales' will come to light. If you think about it. Mueller's and Gonzales' testimony are not in conflict, are they! That suggests it is Comey that is lying, doesn't it?
No, I used them right. However, I'll admit I double checked the definition just in case. Like I said, English is my poorest subject.
Generally, the media gives false impressions by the way they present the truth. however, it is outright lies at times. Like I said, you have to learn to parse the truth.
Ha. Ha. You like assumeing things like that and showing ignorance?
It looks more like to me the media takes a biased viewpoint of the situation. If they were neutral on the subject and reported pro and con cir stances equally, I wouldn't make such accusations.
I didn't see any problems in the testimony. If you look for problems, you can find them. I'll agree that there are things that could be problems. i just don't believe any investigation will show it.
As am I. I still want to see where you say Mueller's testimony is in conflict with Gonzales'. You did make that claim. i think I showed otherwise. Were you speaking of something else?
Hmmm... Believe it of not, I don't read blogs. When I find one in a search for something, I look for source links. Not a blogs content.
Please don't assume things about me. Usually people are wrong when they assume things about me.
jesus, this guy makes yonivore look brilliant.
Maybe someone will come along and make you look....
well just like something.....obviously not brilliant, well
human....yeah that's it. Well no, not really, like animal
life. Like a Clam who spent most of his life in a s ...
WC is brilliant.. haven't you heard?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
