Obama trial aka Blago trial, Obama quid pro quo, Obama senate seat,...SEIU negotiates

Citizen Wells ^ | June 27, 2010

[mo]

what do you suppose Fitzy got out of it?

[DrC]

In early December 2008, Obama announced his intention to reappoint Fitzgerald to another term as federal prosecutor. Since he’d already served 2 terms under a Republican president, I don’t think this was necessarily expected.

I’m also intrigued that a newly elected candidate up to his eyeballs in transition details related to getting ready to take office would have had the time to even consider this relatively minor appointment (Obama was busy making announcements about Cabinet secretaries during this same period), much less have made a firm decision about it.

That said, for someone with Fitzgerald’s alleged talents (he surely could be making many multiples of his federal salary in a private law firm) and integrity, selling one’s soul for a 4 year appointment would seem to be an absurdly low price.

Fitzgerald has proscuted Rezko, Blago and many others from Illinois. He almost surely has the goods on Obama. If we’re REALLY lucky, he views Obama as a snake, and didn’t want to jeopardize his own reappointment by letting the newly elected president get tainted by a penny-ante corruption deal that many might just view as politics-as-usual.

Instead, he’s biding his time, amassing a bullet-proof case against Obama related to his dealings with Rezko and plans to spring his trap once he’s secured a Blago conviction and placed him in a position where he’s motivated to cooperate in providing the essential smoking gun evidence to take Obama down. But given Fitzgerald’s shameful conduct in securing a bogus conviction against Scooter Libby, such an optimistic scenario likely is pure fantasy on my part.

[BuckeyeTexan]

For the record, I was minding my own business on this thread, which is not an eligibility thread, when you decided to launch a personal attack based on a long-standing grudge you carried over from past eligibility threads.

So if you agree that personal attacks are not productive, then stop posting to me because you never have anything to say that isn’t a personal attack.

[danamco]

For the record, I was minding my own business on this thread, which is not an eligibility thread, when you decided to launch a personal attack based on a long-standing grudge you carried over from past eligibility threads.

So if you agree that personal attacks are not productive, then stop posting to me because you never have anything to say that isn’t a personal attack.

You will of course also claim to have never butted in on my discussions with with other FRiends, right, and could you please define what an "eligibility"(?) thread is, what, when, where and when it's NOT about the Constitution???

To: The Admin Moderator: I did acknowledge your post at #18, however, it seems that Buckeye will continue to pursue his agenda of chastising those of us FReepers who have a different opinion, but are very concerned about the Constitution and the NBC discussion. And for the record, I did not initially engage in any name calling!!!

P.S. Since when of having opposing opinions been construed to be "Personal Attacks" that's what liberals often use loosing debates???

[BuckeyeTexan]

I reported abuse on your posts because you carried over a grudge from previous eligibility threads. You couldn’t say you agreed with my comment and leave it at that. You had to be antagonistic by accusing me of “supporting the usurper” and sarcastic by welcoming me “for finally seeing the light.”

Your accusations are false and easily disproved by reviewing my two-year history of comments outside of eligibility threads. (And you know what an eligibility thread is.) You like to pretend that anyone who disagrees with a birther is an Obama supporter and a troll. Many freepers (besides me) are tired of that mantra. It’s immature and unnecessarily divisive.

So the Admin Moderator reviewed posts 9 - 16, deleted all of them, and admonished BOTH of us for personal attacks. I know what I did wrong. I called you a lunatic. I suggested that you’re either a liar or mentally unstable. That was a personal attack and against FR policy.

But you can’t or won’t admit to your own actions. You’re still attacking and are now pretending to be a victim. I was minding my own business on this thread. I didn’t mention birthers or the eligibility issue. So how could I possibly have had an agenda by commenting on how corrupt this administration is?

Just take your admonishment like a freeper should. You initiated a personal attack based a long-standing grudge. Own it.

[danamco]

I reported abuse on your posts because you carried over a grudge from previous eligibility threads.

Yeah, that's exactly what I read you did, directly to JimRob, when Inspector Smith was zooted a couple weeks ago, so nothing new here!

(And you know what an eligibility thread is.)

No I don't, and you don't know either. The headline on this thread: "Obama trial" is an eligibility thread as any others, involving the usurper's criminal activities!!

I called you a lunatic. I suggested that you’re either a liar or mentally unstable. That was a personal attack and against FR policy.

And my only "personal attack"(?) was responding = Bone Head to YOUR uncalled for "personal attack," which is nothing new on F.R., as well as mentioning you voted for Hillary Clinton and the reg*u*la*tor!!!

Just take your admonishment like a freeper should.

I certainly did by acknowledging to Admin, but you did NOT!!!!

Some "newcomer" have the tendency to lecture seasoned FReeper about what or what not to say, i.e. Molly Kuehl. It reminds me of when Governor Christie addressed a reporter (skin-thin) at his press conference recently. By-by for now!!!!