Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (708654)	10/25/2005 12:06:47 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I dont' think the info in the NYT is harmful to Cheney at all. He and Libby are both security-cleared and Cheney should feel totally comfortable bringing his COS up to speed on anything. The problem is that if Libby did get the info from Cheney it seems (time will tell) to contradict everything we think we know about his claims for obtaining the info. That leads to a very dangerous position for him, no doubt. As for this whole nonsense about whether perjury or lying under oath should be prosecuted the same way now as under Clinton, or whether it is as big a crime now as it was then...of course it is (and was). Clinton was pretty scummy personally. I still wince at his verbal nonsense. It shamed the country. But, didn't Clinton's transgressions work their way through the various legal channels? Impeachment, disbarment? Basically, he was "prosecuted". And its over. The danger for the Republicans is that there are so many quotes out there about the rule of law and how important lying under oath is, regardless of circumstance or relevancy to the job one is performing. It is a trap for them, and some (like Kay Bailey Hutchison) seem already prepared to step right into it. This gives the demos massive ammo to trot out the old quotes and then plaster up any new spin the repubs may try. Hey, lying under oath is serious. It must be recognized and punished. The extent of punishment is up to whatever legal or administrative body given the authority to address the specific charge.... Watch out republicans. Don't step in the trap.

To: Bill who wrote (708654)	10/25/2005 12:11:44 PM
From: M0NEYMADE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Of course...a bit like Nixon. "President Nixon ordered his aides to compile an "Enemies List" of his most prominent critics, so that the Internal Revenue Service and other governmental agencies could harass them, though it should be noted the IRS did not comply [2], and in fact, audited Nixon himself [3]. Johnnie M. Walters, disobeyed orders to target the president's critics with tax investigations. White House counsel John Dean presented the infamous Nixon enemies list to Walters and instructed him to audit the hundreds of people named on it, but instead Walters tucked the list away for a year and then provided it to congressional investigators. [4] Only this time worst...