KidRocks
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 1,337
- Reaction score
- 16
- Location
- right here
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
aps said:Will Ney be indicted? Gawd, I hope so!
Spotlight on Lobbying Swings to Little-Known Congressman ...
Mr. Ney's legal problems may loom even larger than his political ones because he is in serious jeopardy of being indicted, people directly involved in the legal case have said. As a result, Mr. Ney is working intensely to convince Justice Department prosecutors that he was tricked by Mr. Abramoff into doing favors for the lobbyist's clients. ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17ney.html
UtahBill said:Tricked? I guess stupid plays better than corrupt.
Which has been the EXACT excuse used in the passing of the Patriot Act and HR 114 giving the President authority to use military force in Iraq...Pacridge said:That's quickly becoming the defense of the day. Defense Du Jour if you will. Everybody from Ken Lay to now this guy. I can hear it now "yeah, I took all that money/trips/gifts... and well, yes I did vote how they asked me to, but, but, but they tricked me into it." The "I'm too stupid to know what I'm doing defense."
cnredd said:Which has been the EXACT excuse used in the passing of the Patriot Act and HR 114 giving the President authority to use military force in Iraq...
"We were duped!"...:roll:
If they were duped, then Pacridge's last sentence stands firm and you agree...aps said:There's a difference in those two cases you mention--the democrats (and any person paying attention to this issue) were duped. Somehow, I doubt that Ney was duped, but we shall see if he pulls it off.
cnredd said:If they were duped, then Pacridge's last sentence stands firm and you agree...
The "I'm too stupid to know what I'm doing defense."
:shrug:
aps said:Well, there is some truth to it. It sounds like had the members of Congress thoroughly reviewed what was provided to them, they would have asked more questions about Iraq and its capabilities.
In the same realm as being duped to the lovely defense of "The country was so unified after 911 that I voted against my own beliefs for the PA because I didn't want to look un-patriotic" defense...Pacridge said:Well it's a dumba$$ defense. The Dems ought to have reviewed what they were passing before agreeing to pass it.
What the passing of the PA has to do with the current scandal, I don't know.
Pacridge said:Well it's a dumba$$ defense. The Dems ought to have reviewed what they were passing before agreeing to pass it.
What the passing of the PA has to do with the current scandal, I don't know.
Begs the questions, who elected these clowns? And which comes first, the elected official that becomes a dumbass, or the dumbass that becomes an elected official?aps said:Pacridge, shall we both run for Congress? We wouldn't be dumba$$es!
Pacridge said:Well it's a dumba$$ defense. The Dems ought to have reviewed what they were passing before agreeing to pass it.
What the passing of the PA has to do with the current scandal, I don't know.
Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.
But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.
Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.
snip
I am also very troubled by the broad expansion of government power under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. When Congress passed FISA in 1978 it granted to the executive branch the power to conduct surveillance in foreign intelligence investigations without meeting the rigorous probable cause standard under the Fourth Amendment that is required for criminal investigations. There is a lower threshold for obtaining a wiretap order from the FISA court because the FBI is not investigating a crime, it is investigating foreign intelligence activities. But the law currently requires that intelligence gathering be the primary purpose of the investigation in order for this lower standard to apply.
KidRocks said:Feel free to add to the Republican led "Culture of Corruption" list if I have missed anyone else.
Let's just hope that the Democrats can sieze on this issue and take back America beginning in Nov. 2006
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?