I’ll See Your Karl Rove and Raise You a Dick Durbin: The GOP Fights Back - (Yes-s-s!!)

CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | JULY 22, 2005 | LISA FABRIZIO

[gr8eman]

I was always interested in the criteria and application (or lack thereof) of our nations laws regarding treason as compared to the constitution. After learning about Vietnam and subsequently about WWI and WWII shenanigans, I am curious where the free speech/treason rubber meets the road. IMO Dick Durbin should be made to parse his statements to a court and explain the relevance to fact his comparisons had and then explain his intentions in making such statements. It should be considered as to the constitution weight of free speech and treason! If not, there is no constitutional standards applied and can be addressed as such.

[GOPJ]

He "says" he destroyed them. But next to stealing word classified documents, lying about the destruction of them is chump change

Good point.

[TheRightGuy]

"It was a long search,
I reached down and touched them,
actually felt them,
and, lo and behold,
they were balls."
---Frist

[Not A Snowbird]

Oh, damn. Coffee on keyboard...

[Not A Snowbird]

In all fairness, the amendment offered by Frist was unconstitutional.

Of course. Nobody expected, least of all Frist, for the amendment to pass. He was, as Rush says, "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd."

[Gunrunner2]

Okay. . change to read, "words that provide aid and comfort to the enemy"

[joyspring777]

Charlite:

You are a wonderful source of research and inspiration. Thank you for all your hard work!

[dead]

It was a childish response by the Republicans, but I liked it because I'm immature.

[Dems_R_Losers]

iIn all fairness, the amendment offered by Frist was unconstitutional. As sickening as Durbin and Biden are, they are allowed to say whatever they'd like. The fact that terrorists choose to use those words later cannot be held against the Democrats legally, though of course it's morally reprehensible that the Dems would say things that could be used in such a way.

There is no constitutional right for a U.S. Senator to have a security clearance. Some of us were advocating revoking Pat Leahy's clearance years ago. There might be a separation of powers argument, but it's a weak one.

Next time the Republicans should ratchet it up with an amendment to declare it treason for a federal officeholder to make statements based on classified information that places U.S. troops at risk of reprisals by an enemy. There is no constitutional problem with that!

[AliVeritas]

I wonder how Wilson's wife (oops, did it again), can stay with him after he ruined (with her help), her career.
She must be made of the same stuff.

[AliVeritas]

Don't forget Leaky Leahy and Dodd. They too outed someone on the floor.

[Ann Archy]

diplomat Wilson said, "I don't care who you vote for, but get out there and caucus. Don't leave it to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians."

ALL of the left DESPISE CHRISTIANS and neoconservatives is a code word for gasp! Republican Jews!!!

[gogeo]

I think it was constitutional. It was an internal Senate rule.

[BackInBlack]

'Okay. . change to read, "words that provide aid and comfort to the enemy"'

That's not much better. I mean, one could argue that even disagreeing with the Iraq War gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and therefore anyone who expresses such an opinion must answer for it in a court of law. I'd hate to live in such a society.

[KOZ.]

LOL

[Polyxene]

"...steely-eyed sniper Reid"

More like squinty-pig-eyed-traitor Reid.

[CHARLITE]

" Wilson is a fraud through-and-through.... "

"The whole Democrat party is a fraud, through and through."

Sorry that it has taken me until today to respond to your excellent comment, but I am doing so, because it bears repeating. "The whole Democrat party is a fraud!"

Thanks so much for saying it like it is! Oftentimes, "short and brutally frank" carries the biggest punch!

Char :)

[CHARLITE]

"I wonder how Wilson's wife (oops, did it again), can stay with him after he ruined (with her help), her career. She must be made of the same stuff."

It has been my theory all along that she is at the heart of the entire conspiracy. She knows the ropes at the CIA. She's the professional "sleuth." He's a hack-has been "diplomat." She's a liberal, and surely part of a "vast left wing conspiracy" within the CIA who are anti-Bush and were against his Iraq policy to remove Saddam from power.

Further, I believe that she (and possibly her miserable husband) knew all about smuggling at high levels by possibly French and/or other UN officials........of Niger uranium into Iraq. The deplorable Wilson couple were trying to kill a few different birds with one stone by cooking up his "mint tea" trip.

They were helping out their smuggling pals (UN-France etc.). They were also helping the Democrats and the Kerry campaign by attempting to discredit our president. Both activities, IMO, are actionable offenses - possibly criminal: CIA employee and former State Dept. employee falsifying intelligence (Niger-yellowcake), and both using their official positions to influence a general election.

Thanks for your comments, AliVeritas!

Char (:

[Gunrunner2]

So. . .you are against anyone being prosecuted for treason.

Those are, after all, the words to define treason.

And a security clearance is an Executive Branch responsibility. . .to issue or not issue, to award or revoke.

[BackInBlack]

"So. . .you are against anyone being prosecuted for treason. Those are, after all, the words to define treason."

Of course I'm not against that. But to "give aid and comfort to the enemy" is too vague to stand up to constitutional scrutiny, and indeed it shouldn't. Look, I don't like Durbin or any of those guys. But if they think the US military might as well be made up of Nazis, they should be able to say so. Then it's up to the democratic process -- that's us -- to boot them out of office.