In the UK, we only get ads like that in the run-up to elections.
Do they play stuff like that all the time in the US? Or just at moments of political controversy etc.?
In the UK, we only get ads like that in the run-up to elections.
Do they play stuff like that all the time in the US? Or just at moments of political controversy etc.?
it's an election year for senate and congress
go ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
factcheck.org. only deals with facts and not partisan rhetoric.....this is the site cheney meant to point to in the edwards debate......it is not a partisan site, go check it out,...
Oh yeah, sorry. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
A recent column by Terence Jeffrey-he points out past (and relevant) Presidential practice, which, although you will no doubt object to as water under the bridge, has the effect of begging the question, What is different about Bush's use of the tactic, apart from his doing so in aid of a "war on terrorism"?
Unless, of course, you don't even believe that.
Jeffrey's point remains, nonetheless:
Unlike Sen. Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat seeking to censure President Bush for ordering the interception of communications in and out of the United States involving persons with suspected links to al-Qaeda, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt had no qualms about warrantless eavesdropping to protect the United States against attack.
Neither did Harry Truman.
There is a difference, however, between the eavesdropping Roosevelt and Truman authorized and the eavesdropping Bush is doing. Roosevelt and Truman did it in peacetime without congressional authorization. Bush is doing it during a war that Feingold voted on Sept. 14, 2001, to authorize.
Nonetheless, Roosevelt and Truman acted within their constitutional authority to defend the nation against attack. They were doing their duty, as is President Bush.
But in the Senate on Monday, while introducing his censure resolution, Feingold said, "The president's claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless."
FDR could not have agreed. On May 21, 1940, the United States was at peace, but Roosevelt wasn't taking chances. "It is too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassination and 'fifth column' activities are completed," Roosevelt wrote Attorney General Robert Jackson in a memorandum cited by Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts in a letter he sent last month to Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter. "You are, therefore, authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigation agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices directed to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the government of the United States, including suspected spies. You are requested furthermore to limit these investigations so conducted to a minimum and to limit them insofar as possible to aliens." (Emphasis added.)
Truman went further. Testifying before the Church Committee on Oct. 29, 1975, Attorney General Edward Levi quoted a letter that Attorney General Tom Clark sent Truman in 1946. Clark wanted to continue FDR's program. Warrantless eavesdropping, he argued, was needed "in cases vitally affecting the domestic security, or where human life is in jeopardy."
In his letter to Specter, Roberts notes that "Truman broadened the scope of the authorization by removing the caveat that such surveillance should be limited 'insofar as possible to aliens.'"
Federal appeals courts have upheld the authority Roosevelt and Truman used. "(B)ecause of the president's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm ... that the president may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the 1973 case of United States v. Brown.
Even after President Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which required warrants for domestic intelligence wiretaps, Carter's Justice Department went into federal court to defend warrantless wiretapping for national security reasons.
Truong Dinh Hung, a Vietnamese national living in the United States, and Ronald Humphrey, a U.S. citizen who worked for the U.S. Information Agency, had appealed their espionage convictions, which resulted from Humphrey passing classified documents to Truong, who sent them to Vietnamese officials in Paris in 1977.
"Truong's phone was tapped and his apartment was bugged from May 1977 to January 1978," explained the Fourth Circuit's 1980 opinion in United States v. Truong. "The telephone interception continued for 268 days, and every conversation, with possibly one exception, was monitored and virtually all were taped. The eavesdropping device was operative for approximately 255 days, and it ran continuously. No court authorization was ever sought or obtained for the installation and maintenance of the telephone tap or the bug. The government thus ascertained that Humphrey was providing Truong with the copies of secret documents."
Lo and behold, Carter's Justice Department claimed Carter had a "constitutional prerogative" to conduct this warrantless wiretap. "In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the president may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs," the court explained.
The judges agreed. "First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy," they said. "A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence initiatives, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations."
Does Bush have the same "constitutional prerogatives" in an authorized war that Carter had in peace? Feingold claims not, demanding censure of the president -- which ought to earn Feingold the censure of enlightened opinion.
has feingold claimed carter had that authority then?.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
this is one mans opinion as to the legality of the wiretapping, what does it have to do with feingolds censure motion or the rnc adverts misinformation?
the motion wouldn't even have risen had an investigation on the legality not been blocked.
Btw.... if this program was legal, why the backroom negotiation to change it to make it so? and how can your opinion writer be so sure the wiretapping is legal..... after all the arguement has been made that feingold couldn't possibly know if it is illegal because it is secret and he doesn't know how it works..... is your columist privy to information denied to the rest of us?
Who can say for sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Odd, though, that of the select few Dems who were kept abreast of the program (I don't recall which ones, off-hand), none of them are making censure/impeachment noises.
As you refer to any effort to quash the prospect of an investigation:
1. Who instigated the investigation?
2. Why do you suppose any previous such activity (Carter's, for instance) failed to prompt talk of an investigation, especially after he signed off on FISA?
EDIT:
I seriously doubt Feingold is even aware of Carter's activities, or if he is, he chooses to ignore the fact for it's inconvenience.
Tell me.
Is murder legal because OJ is walking free?
What has anything Carter did or didn't do got to do with THIS ?
How many times do we have to say that something cannot be excused because someone tried it before. A wrongdoing then is still a wrongdoing now.
Should Bush get caught in the oval office being blown by condi...then lie about it, would it be a defense to say "well clinton did the same thing"?
So.......I am still waiting for your refute of the facts as presented by factcheck on the claims made in the RNC advert. So far you have gone off on a tangent but nothing on the subject posted.
How can you overlook the fact that all legal review and oversight so far conducted with regard to similar activities by other Presidents has not wrought any official proceeding?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Answer that first, if you please?
It has been recounted:
Carter, the "author" of FISA, did precisely what Bush did (in peace time!), with nary a peep from his congress nor any legal review, and, in fact, received legal sanction for same.
Is Feingold some sort of political genius?
Don't make me laugh
Don't forget to answer the question, now....
I will answer to this once you actually respond on the factcheck post which you suggested you could refute. If you wish to change the subject and not talk about the post to which you are replying then you have no right to expect me to respond to that changed subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I am guessing the reason you are not refuting the factcheck post is because it is just that....facts.
We are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.
edit:
but then your question was answered before you asked
edit 2:Quote:
Tell me.
Is murder legal because OJ is walking free?
What has anything Carter did or didn't do got to do with THIS ?
How many times do we have to say that something cannot be excused because someone tried it before. A wrongdoing then is still a wrongdoing now.
Should Bush get caught in the oval office being blown by condi...then lie about it, would it be a defense to say "well clinton did the same thing"?
btw. feingold voted for the clinton impeachment investigation....in case you missed that....he voted to investigate clinton
Refute what, exactly?
It is what it is; I don't feel compelled to respond to an RNC characterization of Feingold's motion.
I didn't express a want or need to refute anything, and, as I've posted previously, at length and ad nauseum, I don't see Bush's actions as exceptional, especially when viewed in the historical context my cut-and-paste provides.
Feingold is entitled to make an ass of himself, as are any Democrats and Republicans who agree with him.
As a matter of fact, I wish the Dems would get behind him and his "winning" strategy.
Now, answer my question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
erm
Now you could suggest that you were saying "I could...but I won't"....however then that would look silly as you did just that...pitty it had little to do with the point.Quote:
I could answer that cut-and-paste with a cut-and-paste of my own, but I have foresworn their use in argumentative circumstances.
You had your answer...twice.....once before you asked and once after...bolded.
I said "answer"; counter, if you will-not "refute".Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Feingold's rationale is selectively applied.
I don't care about the RNC's mis-characterization of his effort.
The inanity of Feingold's motion should be apparent to anyone with even minimal historical perspective.
I don't see what purpose your/their "factcheck" serves, nor do I care; I merely seek to answer Feingold's presumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
He seems pretty consistant to me..perhaps you disagreeQuote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
sourceQuote:
CNN/AllPolitics - Storypage, with TIME and Congressional Quarterly
Democrat bucks party line to vote with GOP in Clinton hearing
January 28, 1999
Web posted at: 1:03 a.m. EST (0603 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Jan. 28) -- Sen. Russell Feingold broke ranks with fellow Democrats Wednesday when he voted with Republicans in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.
Feingold voted against a motion to dismiss the trial and voted in favor of a motion to allow the deposition of three witnesses.
The 45-year-old Wisconsin Democrat was the only senator to break party solidarity, putting him in the company of the Senate's 55 Republicans while the other 44 Democrats voted the other way.
He stressed his action in no way expressed how he might vote in the final determinations of whether Clinton should be removed from office.
Feingold issued a written statement regarding his votes, but refused to take reporters' questions. In the statement, he said dismissing the case now would "improperly short- circuit this trial."
He added that the House prosecutors must have "every reasonable opportunity" -- including testimony from witnesses -- to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton should be removed from office on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Republican endorsement
Stubbornly independent Feingold did not quite provide the level of bipartisanship Republicans had hoped for, but they were grateful nonetheless.
"We have one Democrat who was willing to stand up to his own caucus," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Let me tell you, that was a big-time thing."
Feingold said it was only fair to give House prosecutors more time to attempt to prove the impeachment allegations.
Feingold's move surprised few who know him.
In his hard-fought re-election campaign last year against Republican congressman Mark Neumann, Feingold took the unusual step of ordering negative ads about his opponent taken off the air and rejecting commercials on his behalf paid for with "soft money."
And in the Senate he has been a leading advocate of campaign reform legislation unpopular with many colleagues in both parties.
As for his Senate votes Wednesday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said Feingold had indicated that he had concern especially about the obstruction of justice article and "wanted to hear witnesses before he reached his judgment on it."
Feingold had previously sought separate dismissal votes on the two articles and said in his statement that one of them "comes closer to the core meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors."
Lieberman, who stunned the White House in September with a speech highly critical of Clinton's conduct and urged some formal disapproval, said he respected Feingold's position and told him "not to worry about his votes."
Most Democrats avoided direct criticism of Feingold. "I think he voted his conscience," said Sen. John Breaux, D- La. "It's an indication we didn't try to break arms and insist on a caucus vote."
His votes cracked an otherwise straight party line showing by Democrats and Republicans, putting Feingold in the company of the Senate's 55 Republicans while the other 44 Democrats voted the other way.
"My view, as of this moment, is that to dismiss this case would in appearance and in fact improperly 'short circuit' this trial," Feingold said in a statement after the votes.
Feingold said it was possible he could support a motion to adjourn or dismiss at a later stage of the trial, "although I strongly prefer that this trial conclude with a final vote on the articles."
The Senate is considering two articles of impeachment against Clinton, perjury and obstruction of justice, related to attempts to cover up his affair with Lewinsky.
"It would have allowed the Senate to consider the strength of the evidence presented on the two separate articles and the possibility that one of the articles comes closer to the core meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors than the other," Feingold said.
Funny how the RNC or any right wing bloggers/columist/commentators never mention any of this in the character assasination process
Oh, now I get it.
I am obligated to tip my hat to Feingold on account of his honesty and consistancy?
I am supposed to assign to him a degree of gravitas because he voted to impeach Clinton and because he's standing against his own caucus?
Hear this:
I couldn't care less about Feingold's character, much less who's assassinating it, and if you deem the RNC's treatment of him to be pejorative, that's fine; I don't feel any compulsion to rehabilitate him for you.
I don't align myself with the RNC, and you should know that by now.
Answer the question.
3rd time answering.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Tom Delay quits congress. Yay!!!
I hope he still gets brought up on federal charges though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
How true
then they can charge our scum- Conrad Burns
Yay, indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Better than the tenterhooks.
Why that last, BTW?
Is it especially important to you for some reason?
Yes if he thinks he can quit to avoid any federal charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I'm sure we'll find that out, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
It's not as if they'll stop looking...
Much as I am enjoying the whole delay ethics saga I am not convicting him before trial, there is enough ideological dirt for me to play with.
I will however say his defense tactics remind me of the mob..... don't want to face trial.... get rid of the prosecution.
delay leaving helps the repubs. and annoys me..... I wanted to see his smile the day after he was voted out :angry: :P
Count it.:happy:Quote:
Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, praised by death penalty foes for halting executions but accused of using public office to enrich friends and family, was found guilty on Monday of fraud, racketeering, tax evasion and other charges.
The federal court jury verdict, which similarly found Ryan's friend and co-defendant Larry Warner guilty of all counts against him, is a stern warning that no one in public office is above the law, officials said after the decision.
The jury convicted Ryan, 72, of all 18 felony counts against him, including racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, tax fraud and making false statements to the FBI.
He had steadfastly denied any guilt for the alleged offenses that took place when he was governor, and before that secretary of state. Each count carried maximum prison sentences of between three and 20 years, plus fines, and prosecutors said they will seek $3 million in restitution from Ryan and Warner. They will be sentenced in August.
Warner, 67, a businessman who won lucrative state lobbying deals while Ryan was in office, was found guilty of racketeering, mail fraud, attempted extortion, money laundering and making unlawful currency withdrawals.
FREE VACATIONS, TICKETS
The bulk of the case involved a web of leases and contracts that benefited friends of Ryan, who prosecutors said had hung a "for sale" sign on his office. Prosecutors portrayed him as a big-spender who accepted free vacations, tickets to events and gifts to his family from friends who brokered deals with the state with Ryan's backing.
Evidence presented at the trial depicted Ryan as a man who spent freely from wads of cash but rarely made bank withdrawals during his time in state office. His lawyers said that evidence was circumstantial at best and no witness had testified that Ryan was actually handed a bribe.
Ryan, a Republican who served one term as governor, said he was disappointed by the convictions but was confident of winning an appeal.
Execute him. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Another one
Quote:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert requested Sunday that the Justice Department conduct an investigation into former Rep. Mark Foley's electronic messages to teenage boys - a lurid scandal that has put House Republicans in political peril.
"As Speaker of the House, I hereby request that the Department of Justice conduct an investigation of Mr. Foley's conduct with current and former House pages to determine to what extent any of his actions violated federal law," Hastert, R-Ill., wrote in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress also called Sunday for a criminal probe. White House counselor Dan Bartlett called the allegations against Foley shocking, but said President Bush hadn't learned of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to a 16-year-old boy and instant messages to other boys before the news broke last week.
"There is going to be, I'm sure, a criminal investigation into the particulars of this case," Bartlett said. "We need to make sure that the page system is one in which children come up here and can work and make sure that they are protected."
Foley, R-Fla., quit Congress on Friday after the disclosure of the e-mails he sent to a former congressional page and sexually suggestive instant messages he sent to other high school pages.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called the Foley case "repugnant, but equally as bad is the possibility that Republican leaders in the House of Representatives knew there was a problem and ignored it to preserve a congressional seat this election year."
Reid said the case should be handled outside Congress.
"Under laws that Congressman Foley helped write, soliciting sex from a minor online is a federal crime," Reid said. "The alleged crimes here are far outside the scope of any congressional committee, and the attorney general should open a full-scale investigation immediately."
In his letter to Gonzales on Sunday, Hastert asked the Justice Department to investigate "who had specific knowledge of the content of any sexually explicit communications between Mr. Foley and any former or current House pages and what actions such individuals took, if any, to provide them to law enforcement."
The scope of the investigation, Hastert wrote, should include "any and all individuals who may have been aware of this matter - be they members of Congress, employees of the House of Representatives or anyone outside the Congress."
Hastert also sent a letter to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Sunday requesting that he "direct the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct an investigation of Mr. Foley's conduct with current and former House pages."
Hastert maintained at first that he had learned only last week about the e-mails. But Rep. Thomas Reynolds, head of the House Republican election effort, said Saturday he had told Hastert months ago about concerns Foley sent inappropriate messages to a teenage boy. Reynolds, R-N.Y., is under attack from Democrats who say he did too little to protect the boy.
Hastert acknowledged over the weekend that his aides had, in fact, referred the matter to the House clerk and to the congressman who was chairman of the board that oversees the page program. Hastert's office said, however, it had not known the e-mails were anything more than "over-friendly."
Majority Republicans engineered a House vote Friday that refers the Foley matter to the House ethics committee, but lets that panel decide whether there should even be an investigation.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, pressed the committee on Sunday to begin investigating and make a preliminary report within 10 days. She demanded to know who knew of the messages, whether Foley had other contacts with pages and when the Republican leadership was notified of Foley's conduct.
"Republican leaders have admitted to knowing about Mr. Foley's outrageous behavior for six months to a year, and they chose to cover it up rather than to protect these children," she wrote.
Congressional pages, a staple of Washington politics since the 1820s, are high school students who serve as temporary gofers in the House and Senate. The program nearly ended in the early 1980s due to alleged sexual misconduct and drug use.
Republican leaders say it is their duty to ensure House pages' safety, and are now creating a toll-free hot line for pages and their families to call to confidentially report any incidents. They also will consider adopting new rules on communications between lawmakers and pages.
House Democrats said that wasn't enough.
"This should be investigated objectively. I think the Democratic leadership should have been told 10 months ago," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "I gather that basically nothing was done except that Foley was warned."
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said the House ethics committee should conclude its work on the Foley case before the November elections, so that voters can "hold people accountable." Doing so, he said, might help restore public confidence, since already "the reputation of Congress under the Republican leadership is lower than used car salesmen."
Foley, who is 52 and single, was co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. In a statement Friday, he said, "I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent."
Harman was on "Fox News Sunday," Murtha appeared on ABC's "This Week" and Bartlett spoke on ABC's "This Week, CNN's "Late Edition" and CBS'"Face the Nation."
I wonder if we will find out who knew what, when and what they did or didn't do about it before the elections.
That said they will have to try to remember where the ethics committee room is first.....that could take a while, it's been so long since it was last used.
It's expected that faux would not be able to report on this without trying to point out that Democrats have "scandals"....they use Clinton's name in every sentence they say Foley's name, as if an extra marital affair between consenting adults is the same as a pedophile. However Rush topped faux and managed to spin this so that Foley is just an innocent victim of democratic smear.
He then blamed the concealing of the e-mails on Nancy Pelosi. :ermm:Quote:
"The release of all this (Foley's e-mails) was not to save the children. It was not to take a predator off the streets. This was a strategic move to help the Democrats. They could have known it before the Republicans. It would appear so."
I really don't like Rush. From his remarks about McNabb (who went to a handful of NFC Championships in a row and a Superbowl; overrated?) to what just posted above.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
To use some forum lingo....he's a fucktard.
Equating an adulterer to a pedophile? What about equating a pedophile to a drug addict?:ermm:
Hannity is blaming the democrats as well right now. He's angry as hell that this has been released 5 weeks before an election.