I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

If we use anything other than google our searches will be monitored by the government..... hold out google...hold out.

As to Barret I suggest Clinton be voted out of office....oh wait.........

---

Oh, so if the one makes it to the end of one's term before being properly sorted, one skates?

A novel view.

Anything to preserve that legacy, huh? :P

---

On the contrary, I have stated many times before if Clinton broke the law he is not above it.
But I thought you would approve of sending the IRS after people...after all if they did no wrong.......
To this I will add that I dislike the presidential pardons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

But if it holds up?

---

If it held up, or was thought to be solid enough to hold up - I presume it would have been in the redacted version.

That would be the general premis behind any redaction, yes?

Maybe the redacters are corrupt and decided to protect Clinton.

By my way of thinking, it has to be one or the other.

I kinda think it's probably the former - but then my understanding of how these things work in America is limited.

---

The redactions are fruit of the labors of scads of lawyers disposed to protect Clinton.

No security stuff involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

[
But I thought you would approve of sending the IRS after people...after all if they did no wrong.......

---

Awfully disingenuous of you, vid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

If it held up, or was thought to be solid enough to hold up - I presume it would have been in the redacted version.

That would be the general premis behind any redaction, yes?

Maybe the redacters are corrupt and decided to protect Clinton.

By my way of thinking, it has to be one or the other.

I kinda think it's probably the former - but then my understanding of how these things work in America is limited.

---

The redactions are fruit of the labors of scads of lawyers disposed to protect Clinton.

No security stuff involved.

---

So, it's the former reason. They wouldn't hold up.

Thought so :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The redactions are fruit of the labors of scads of lawyers disposed to protect Clinton.

No security stuff involved.

---

So, it's the former reason. They wouldn't hold up.

Thought so :)

---

You don't know enough to rod on the subject, so I'm left with naive or smartass as choices.

Both, more likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

[
But I thought you would approve of sending the IRS after people...after all if they did no wrong.......

---

Awfully disingenuous of you, vid.

---

Well you seem unconcerned about privacy re. wiretapping without warrants, only the guilty have something to worry about. So yes it may be a calculating statement but I am giving you the credit of not having double standards :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

So, it's the former reason. They wouldn't hold up.

Thought so :)

---

You don't know enough to rod on the subject, so I'm left with naive or smartass as choices.

Both, more likely.

---

I already said that I don't know how these things work in America. By all means, look upon that as a lack of sophistication if you like. However, I put forward what I logically thought to be the case.

You appeared to confirm what I thought.


Are you intimating that this is not the case? If so, please expound upon how a lawyer, no matter by whom he was dispatched, can be corrupt and illegally cover-up bonafide, 100% confirmed factiods in a high profile report such as this.

The way I see it, if something happened and was uncovered by the report compilers - and evidence supported the claim - the lawyers would not be able to cover it up. Unless corruption is in evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Awfully disingenuous of you, vid.

---

Well you seem unconcerned about privacy re. wiretapping without warrants, only the guilty have something to worry about. So yes it may be a calculating statement but I am giving you the credit of not having double standards :P

---

Oh, thank you, thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

please expound upon how a lawyer, no matter by whom he was dispatched, can be corrupt and illegally cover-up bonafide, 100% confirmed factiods in a high profile report such as this.

---

You also suffer a knowledge deficit as re: the "art" of American lawyering.

I haven't the time to explain that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

please expound upon how a lawyer, no matter by whom he was dispatched, can be corrupt and illegally cover-up bonafide, 100% confirmed factiods in a high profile report such as this.

---

You also suffer a knowledge deficit as re: the "art" of American lawyering.

I haven't the time to explain that.

---

It probably works in much the same way as it does over here.

The people who complied the Barret Report didn't have enough evidence to release all of their findings. They wouldn't have held up under the scrutiny of people employed to find fault within them.

Some of their assertions must have been watertight - hence the redacted report getting published. It appears that a lot of their other assertions were not watertight, since they weren't published along with the watertight stuff.

Hence their relagation to fodder for Conservative conjecture in the unpopular press.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You also suffer a knowledge deficit as re: the "art" of American lawyering.

I haven't the time to explain that.

---

It probably works in much the same way as it does over here.

The people who complied the Barret Report didn't have enough evidence to release all of their findings. They wouldn't have held up under the scrutiny of people employed to find fault within them.

Some of their assertions must have been watertight - hence the redacted report getting published. It appears that a lot of their other assertions were not watertight, since they weren't published along with the watertight stuff.

Hence their relagation to fodder for Conservative conjecture in the unpopular press.

---

Rest assured, there are those who have seen it intact and have made allusions to it's contents, but are legally constrained from quoting with specificity.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

---

Indeed, it would be churlish to draw conclusions at this juncture.

As was my initial point in post 116.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

---

Indeed, it would be churlish to draw conclusions at this juncture.

As was my initial point in post 116.

---

Indeed; I was merely throwing out a teaser:

Why would the lawyerists waste such flipping great wodges of cash for no reason?

Forgive my counting on your ability to read between the lines. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Indeed, it would be churlish to draw conclusions at this juncture.

As was my initial point in post 116.

---

Indeed; I was merely throwing out a teaser:

Why would the lawyerists waste such flipping great wodges of cash for no reason?

Forgive my counting on your ability to read between the lines. ;)

---

This condescension tactic frequently works on fifteen year olds who cannot go a complete sentence without a 'lol', and it's to your credit that you've not yet failed. However, when put into practice against folk who are somewhat older, I've noticed that you end up looking like a bit of a smug twat.

From the above, I infer that you're suggesting that they shouldn't have bothered with lawyers and left the whole thing to chance.

'Ah, that Barret Report is probably utterly unbiased so having a legal team check it over would be a complete waste of money'.

I have my lawyer check over even the smallest detail which I believe could impinge upon my professional standing, don't you? I imagine a gentleman such as Mr. Clinton would place himself firmly to the left of the caution threshold in matters such as these.

I think you're many things, j2. A tightwad, probably - but not an ostrich.



However, one lives and one learns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

This condescension tactic frequently works on fifteen year olds who cannot go a complete sentence without a 'lol', and it's to your credit that you've not yet failed. However, when put into practice against folk who are somewhat older, I've noticed that you end up looking like a bit of a smug twat.

From the above, I infer that you're suggesting that they shouldn't have bothered with lawyers and left the whole thing to chance.

---

I infer someone "older" should think twice ere presenting with the smug sophistication of a fifteen-year-old.

That is what I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

This eresion tactic frequently works on fifteen year olds who cannot go a complete sentence without a 'lol', and it's to your credit that you've not yet failed. However, when put into practice against folk who are somewhat older, I've noticed that you end up looking like a bit of a smug twat.

From the above, I infer that you're suggesting that they shouldn't have bothered with lawyers and left the whole thing to chance.

---

I infer someone "older" should think twice ere presenting with the smug sophistication of a fifteen-year-old.

That is what I think.

---

lol 'ere'.

You sure put me in my place :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I infer someone "older" should think twice ere presenting with the smug sophistication of a fifteen-year-old.

That is what I think.

---

:lol: 'ere'.

You sure put me in my place :lol:

---

Why would I do that?

I never leave my place, and do not allow others to direct me.

Your "place" is yours to seek, monkey-boy, and you end up there by your own hand.

If you don't like it, don't blame me.

It appears your place involves obfuscation when confused. This time including insults.

How is that working out for you. I trust the reparation is worth the indignity.

'Monkey boy' ... really, you'll be calling me gay next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

It appears your place involves obfuscation when confused. This time including insults.

How is that working out for you. I trust the reparation is worth the indignity.

'Monkey boy' ... really, you'll be calling me gay next.

---

You're the one with the attitude, manker.

I don't know what started it.

Or perhaps you'd prefer to wear the "condescension" crown for yourself?

My claim on it seems to have made you a bit pissy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

It appears your place involves obfuscation when confused. This time including insults.

How is that working out for you. I trust the reparation is worth the indignity.

'Monkey boy' ... really, you'll be calling me gay next.

---

You're the one with the attitude, manker.

I don't know what started it.

Or perhaps you'd prefer to wear the "condescension" crown for yourself?

My claim on it seems to have made you a bit pissy.

---

If I recall, I was the one who placed that particular albatross around your neck. So that's hardly likely to perturb me.

Just read back thro' your posts for clues, discern for yourself which comments could have possibly made me take umbrage.

If your difficulty in ascertaining exactly what caused this continues, I suspect a smug fifteen year old could do it for you, because it's not difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Just read back thro' your posts for clues, discern for yourself which comments could have possibly made me take umbrage.

---

Which thread, please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Just read back thro' your posts for clues, discern for yourself which comments could have possibly made me take umbrage.

---

Which thread, please?

---

Take your pick, flowe :schnauz:






Nah, just this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

So, it's the former reason. They wouldn't hold up.

Thought so :)

---

You don't know enough to rod on the subject, so I'm left with naive or smartass as choices.

Both, more likely.

---

This?

Hint: Look at what you wrote just before I made the 'smug twat' comment.


I really was quite benevolent before that :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Hint: Look at what you wrote just before I made the 'smug twat' comment.


I really was quite benevolent before that :)

---

So I mistook your genuine ignorance on the matter for a parsing deficit?

You don't have the slightest idea what the Barrett Report is?

You can't read between lines that aren't there, but if you knew what it was to begin with, we wouldn't be having this disagreement.

In short, a Special Prosecutor was appointed to investigate the actions of a former Clinton cabinet official named Henry Cisneros, who was asked to resign over financial wrongdoing.

In the process of the investigation, the prosecutor (Barrett) discovered a cornucopia (as the story goes) of IRS abuses, intrusions, persecutions, ruinations, etc., along with a laundry-list of other financial trespasses, all at the behest of the Clinton administration or in aid of their cause.

The Clintons stonewalled the investigation while Bill was in office, and have continued to successfully fight release of the document since he's been gone.

The redacted version is nothing but a collection of words like "the", "and", "is", "were", and such with the nouns and verbs gone missing.

Lawyers only fight so hard over genuinely damaging information, manker.

Anyway, if you have been lacking this information, I apologize for causing your ferment, but you sounded more interested in denunciations than the real story.

After all, that is what I'm used to, and no matter our good relationship, you've not been shy with the tweak previously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Hint: Look at what you wrote just before I made the 'smug twat' comment.


I really was quite benevolent before that :)

---

So I mistook your genuine ignorance on the matter for a parsing deficit?

You don't have the slightest idea what the Barrett Report is?

You can't read between lines that aren't there, but if you knew what it was to begin with, we wouldn't be having this disagreement.

In short, a Special Prosecutor was appointed to investigate the actions of a former Clinton cabinet official named Henry Cisneros, who was asked to resign over financial wrongdoing.

In the process of the investigation, the prosecutor (Barrett) discovered a cornucopia (as the story goes) of IRS abuses, intrusions, persecutions, ruinations, etc., along with a laundry-list of other financial trespasses, all at the behest of the Clinton administration or in aid of their cause.

The Clintons stonewalled the investigation while Bill was in office, and have continued to successfully fight release of the document since he's been gone.

The redacted version is nothing but a collection of words like "the", "and", "is", "were", and such with the nouns and verbs gone missing.

Lawyers only fight so hard over genuinely damaging information, manker.

Anyway, if you have been lacking this information, I apologize for causing your ferment, but you sounded more interested in denunciations than the real story.

After all, that is what I'm used to, and no matter our good relationship, you've not been shy with the tweak previously.

---

See, now how hard was that. You giving me reasons as to why you think that the Barrett Report contains some pretty damning stuff.

I'd not heard of it before you invited us to Google for it, I did so as I wondered what it was. I read a bit and decided that since no-one (well, no-one that's talking) really knows what's in there, any judgment upon the content is premature - which is what I posted.

Further, it seemed to me on my swift perusal that no amount of 'stonewalling' could have stopped at least some of the allegations purported to lurk within from coming to light, at least after Clinton's tenure, but Barrett shut his Grand Juries down many years ago.

That appeared to me as him signaling defeat. Surely, if there was something there that could be proven, he would not have done that.


As I've stated, I really am not up on how Americans conduct these affairs - but I was offering my opinion on the matter. It got a bit tiresome after several flippant answers from yourself - so I fired a few back meself.

Good relationship unaffected :geptard:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Good relationship unaffected :geptard:

---

I am glad of it. :)

Doesn't it seem a little odd that after 2 years in charge of the investigation and as soon as the "crap is starting to hit the fan" Bush has offered the Abramoff prosecutor, a federal judgeship thus taking him off the case.

Nixon 2 the movie anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Doesn't it seem a little odd that after 2 years in charge of the investigation and as soon as the "crap is starting to hit the fan" Bush has offered the Abramoff prosecutor, a federal judgeship thus taking him off the case.

Nixon 2 the movie anyone?

---

For sure.

Everyone knows he takes the evidence with him when he goes, and there's no way they'd start from scratch...:dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Doesn't it seem a little odd that after 2 years in charge of the investigation and as soon as the "crap is starting to hit the fan" Bush has offered the Abramoff prosecutor, a federal judgeship thus taking him off the case.

Nixon 2 the movie anyone?

---

For sure.

Everyone knows he takes the evidence with him when he goes, and there's no way they'd start from scratch...:dry:

---

It is still uncanny timing.

I loved Bush's reaction when he was questioned about Abramoff during a morning press conference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Doesn't it seem a little odd that after 2 years in charge of the investigation and as soon as the "crap is starting to hit the fan" Bush has offered the Abramoff prosecutor, a federal judgeship thus taking him off the case.

Nixon 2 the movie anyone?

---

For sure.

Everyone knows he takes the evidence with him when he goes, and there's no way they'd start from scratch...:dry:

---

But it certainly would hinder the process would it not ? (In an election year)

Bush seems to want to put someone else in his stead, someone HE wants. Surely at this stage justice would better be served by delaying any change of prosecutors.

At this stage I am not really convinced of any mischief in the act but it does seem odd to me with the timing

do they honestly think this looks ethical?

Quote:

---

Specter Off To A Bad Start

At the beginning of the hearing with Attorney General Gonzales about Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced:

1. Attorney Alberto Gonzales won’t be sworn in, even though the last time he testified under oath he misled the committee about the program. Leahy noted he was sworn the other two times he appeared before the committee. Leahy appealed the ruling of the chair and asked for a roll call vote.

2. Specter won’t allow videos to be shown during the hearings of the President and Attorney General Gonzales misleading Congress and the public about the program

---

I like Specter, I don't always agree with his politics but I have always held him up to be an principled and honest man. This is such a shame and not expected.
The other republicans on the comitte did as expected

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

do they honestly think this looks ethical?

Quote:

---

Specter Off To A Bad Start

At the beginning of the hearing with Attorney General Gonzales about Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced:

1. Attorney Alberto Gonzales won’t be sworn in, even though the last time he testified under oath he misled the committee about the program. Leahy noted he was sworn the other two times he appeared before the committee. Leahy appealed the ruling of the chair and asked for a roll call vote.

2. Specter won’t allow videos to be shown during the hearings of the President and Attorney General Gonzales misleading Congress and the public about the program

---

I like Specter, I don't always agree with his politics but I have always held him up to be an principled and honest man. This is such a shame and not expected.
The other republicans on the comitte did as expected

---

...holding the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I like Specter, I don't always agree with his politics but I have always held him up to be an principled and honest man. This is such a shame and not expected.
The other republicans on the comitte did as expected

---

Specter sucks donkey balls and always has.

He'd make a passable liberal, though.

I must also say it was funny watching him slap down Ted Kennedy during the Alito hearings. :naughty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I like Specter, I don't always agree with his politics but I have always held him up to be an principled and honest man. This is such a shame and not expected.
The other republicans on the comitte did as expected

---

Specter sucks donkey balls and always has.

He'd make a passable liberal, though.

I must also say it was funny watching him slap down Ted Kennedy during the Alito hearings. :naughty:

---

I'm not great big fan of Kennedy ( politics aside I have greater respect for Specter) but he did win that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Specter sucks donkey balls and always has.

He'd make a passable liberal, though.

I must also say it was funny watching him slap down Ted Kennedy during the Alito hearings. :naughty:

---

I'm not great big fan of Kennedy ( politics aside I have greater respect for Specter) but he did win that one.

---

Kennedy won?

Uh-uh.

Specter hadn't read the memo, but Kennedy's staff (among many others) had already parsed the papers Kennedy wanted to "subpoena", and the dumb bastard didn't even know it.

Specter wins points for telling him off, nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I'm not great big fan of Kennedy ( politics aside I have greater respect for Specter) but he did win that one.

---

Kennedy won?

Uh-uh.

Specter hadn't read the memo, but Kennedy's staff (among many others) had already parsed the papers Kennedy wanted to "subpoena", and the dumb bastard didn't even know it.

Specter wins points for telling him off, nothing more.

---

Well yes, it turned out that specters office had indeed recieved the memo and kennedy's office had a confirmation of receipt. Specter admitted he had discussed it with his Chief-of-Staff on the phone and agreed to get the records.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Kennedy won?

Uh-uh.

Specter hadn't read the memo, but Kennedy's staff (among many others) had already parsed the papers Kennedy wanted to "subpoena", and the dumb bastard didn't even know it.

Specter wins points for telling him off, nothing more.

---

Well yes, it turned out that specters office had indeed recieved the memo and kennedy's office had a confirmation of receipt. Specter admitted he had discussed it with his Chief-of-Staff on the phone and agreed to get the records.

---

No; I realize that was the favored story the next day, but it is as I described it.

The documents were requested by Kennedy from the archive, which forwarded the request to Bill Rusher, who had founded CAP, and to whom the documents belonged before Rusher deposited them with the archive at it's request.

Rusher refused Kennedy's request, but acquiesced to other committee members who openly shared the documents with Kennedy's staff, with Rusher's consent-he had spurned Kennedy's request just to tweak EMK, knowing full well Kennedy would get a look through other channels.

The documents had been vetted some time before the committee even convened, and Kennedy's people hadn't mentioned it to the boss because there was nothing there.

Imagine that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Well yes, it turned out that specters office had indeed recieved the memo and kennedy's office had a confirmation of receipt. Specter admitted he had discussed it with his Chief-of-Staff on the phone and agreed to get the records.

---

No; I realize that was the favored story the next day, but it is as I described it.

The documents were requested by Kennedy from the archive, which forwarded the request to Bill Rusher, who had founded CAP, and to whom the documents belonged before Rusher deposited them with the archive at it's request.

Rusher refused Kennedy's request, but acquiesced to other committee members who openly shared the documents with Kennedy's staff, with Rusher's consent-he had spurned Kennedy's request just to tweak EMK, knowing full well Kennedy would get a look through other channels.

The documents had been vetted some time before the committee even convened, and Kennedy's people hadn't mentioned it to the boss because there was nothing there.

Imagine that...

---

interesting...got a source?

even so how does this relate to the specter/kennedy tiff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

No; I realize that was the favored story the next day, but it is as I described it.

The documents were requested by Kennedy from the archive, which forwarded the request to Bill Rusher, who had founded CAP, and to whom the documents belonged before Rusher deposited them with the archive at it's request.

Rusher refused Kennedy's request, but acquiesced to other committee members who openly shared the documents with Kennedy's staff, with Rusher's consent-he had spurned Kennedy's request just to tweak EMK, knowing full well Kennedy would get a look through other channels.

The documents had been vetted some time before the committee even convened, and Kennedy's people hadn't mentioned it to the boss because there was nothing there.

Imagine that...

---

interesting...got a source?

even so how does this relate to the specter/kennedy tiff?

---

The source is Rusher himself.

It serves to indicate Specter was wrong, but entertaining, while Kennedy was ignorant as well as wrong, pompous and, well, Kennedyesque.

He is a total caricature; a bad joke.