Skip to comments.
Court Blocks Feds on Congressman's Files (Democratic Rep. William Jefferson)
Breitbart ^
| 7-28-06
| Toni Locy
Posted on 07/28/2006 2:05:05 PM PDT by STARWISE
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-113 next last
To: brazzaville
I think the point is that it would be a good thing for this scandal to simmer along until election time, then erupt like an ugly zit to remind voters of what DemocRATs are really like. It would also blunt the DemocRAT charge of a Republican culture of corruption. I could be wrong.No, you are absolutely correct.
To: kcvl
"Jefferson wants the appellate court to allow him to look at the seized materials before the special review team to determine whether any of the documents fell into the category of legislative privilege."
"Legislative Privilege" can only refer to Jefferson's internal communications with his staff. I obviously expect the congressman has a different opinion, but the idea of "privilege" in this instance must be very narrow.
42
posted on
07/28/2006 5:36:53 PM PDT
by
StJacques
(Liberty is always unfinished business)
To: Lancey Howard
43
posted on
07/28/2006 5:46:36 PM PDT
by
Unicorn
(Too many wimps around.)
To: SolidSupplySide
"The election got rid of Tom DeLay!"
WTF??? DeLay is innocent and has been targeted by a partisan witch-hunt. He is on the ballot, which the Democrats are fighting. He will be proven innocent. The one who should go to jail is the partisan prosecutor. Who had to go to 4 or 5 Grand Juries before he got his bogus indictment, where the case for the defense is limited. The defense will present it's case at trial.
Do you consider everyone guilty before they have a chance to present their case in court? As I understand it the prosecutor has to prove guilt in a fair trial. I believe it's called Democracy.
To: GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos
Whoops!
I should have said "He's on the ballot which the Democrats are fighting FOR." Another Dem-game.
To: SolidSupplySide
When BC was setting records for illegal actvities, I told a liberal friend of mine that if Bob Dole had been elected and was caught doing the same things, I would demand that he be removed from office.
He could not comprehend why I would think such a thing.
Politics is rough and tumble, often dirty and semiethical and/or unethical. But I'll be damned if I am going to believe that our guys have to commit criminal acts in order to win office. That is reserved for Democrats because they can't win unless they lie about their beliefs and commit massive voter fraud in a variety of ways.
46
posted on
07/28/2006 6:54:35 PM PDT
by
ChildOfThe60s
(If you can remember the 60s...you weren't really there.)
To: mrsmith
There is nothing legitimate about the guy. But he will claim it is all legitimate legislative work and it will be protected. I really don't think these guys should be keeping any secrets anyways. They have no need to except in matters dealing with foreign countries or the military. A few less secrets and we would all be a lot better off.
47
posted on
07/28/2006 7:23:18 PM PDT
by
Revel
To: STARWISE
Jeffter was just a bag man for kick backs from African nations on favors done by the Dems.
There are other Dems involved.
There have to be in order for a kick back scam like this to work.
I hope Gonzales goes after them all!!!
And puts all of it on the table before thr November election!!!!
48
posted on
07/28/2006 7:23:41 PM PDT
by
Candor7
(Into Liberal flatulance goes the best hope of the West, and who wants to be a smart feller?)
To: mrsmith
Besides that...Once this guy got caught doing what he was doing then his only rights are for a defense in a criminal court as far as I am concerned. I don't believe that the separation of powers was ever intended to cover such nonsense as this. They guy commits a criminal act and it is up to the judicial system to deal with him. The evidence is not protected. And just why would the judicial care about anything that was not pertinent to the criminal case against him. We are supposed to trust government with our constitutional rights via the patriot act, but the legislative branch is not suppose to trust the judicial branch in matter of criminal charges. Hypocrisy.
49
posted on
07/28/2006 7:30:31 PM PDT
by
Revel
To: SolidSupplySide
"The election got rid of Tom DeLay!"
That's untrue and you know it! That sleazebag, politically motivated prosecutor in Austin got DeLay out of his position, but it just may not work since DeLay is still on the ballot (more Dim finagling) and DeLay just may win! HA!
50
posted on
07/28/2006 8:21:07 PM PDT
by
Rembrandt
(We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
To: pageonetoo
"The election got rid of Tom DeLay!
==
I thought the Dems were fighting to keep him off the ballot!
~~
The Dims were fighting to keep DeLay ON the ballot, hoping they could win the seat in a walk. It's beginning to appear that if DeLay is still on the ballot, DeLay will win!
51
posted on
07/28/2006 8:23:37 PM PDT
by
Rembrandt
(We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
To: STARWISE
52
posted on
07/28/2006 8:29:15 PM PDT
by
Fedora
To: SolidSupplySide
>>I prefer your position. Corruption in and of itself is bad. However, I wish you didn't have despair. There is a cleansing mechinism for corruption every two years. We can vote them out! The election got rid of Tom DeLay! <<<
Check your facts a bit.
Tom DeLay WON in the primary.
Then tried to resign - except that the Dems have tried to use the courts to block that.
If DeLay stays on the Ballot he will still whip the Dem's butt. Then he can resign and have someone appointed. He's not out because of the voters - He did it for honor.
To: kcvl
Jefferson wants the appellate court to allow him to look at the seized materials before the special review team to determine whether any of the documents fell into the category of legislative privilege. Like every bit of incriminating evidence?
54
posted on
07/28/2006 8:46:55 PM PDT
by
steveegg
(Let's make the deeply-saddened Head KOmmie deeply soddened in Nov. - deny the 'RATs the election)
To: mrsmith
His legitimate legislative work will be removed from the evidence. That's all. If you truly believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
55
posted on
07/28/2006 8:48:23 PM PDT
by
steveegg
(Let's make the deeply-saddened Head KOmmie deeply soddened in Nov. - deny the 'RATs the election)
To: STARWISE
I'd like this one to go to the Supremes.
To: ritewingwarrior
This sounds reasonable, if the original media reports are to be believed which would have the judge cut out of the loop.
To: Revel
his only rights are for a defense in a criminal court as far as I am concerned. But, not as far as the Constitution is concerned. Even this slime does have the "civil" right to challenge the legislatively privileged aspect of the stuff that was seized before it goes public and gets splashed out on, say, thesmokinggun.com. Without that, anybody in Congress, even your dearest GOP friend, is in a position to get harassed by bureaucrats of opposite political persuasion.
To: The Red Zone
position to get harassed by bureaucrats of opposite political persuasion Utterly absurd nonsense. A legally obtained court issued warrant was executed on a suspected criminal. YOU now want to make the law have ONE meaning for us peons and another one for elected officials. His place of business is in NO way immune because he happens to be a Congress critter. The CHECK on political motivated attacks like you fear is the Judiciary NOT a self claimed immunity by Congress.
59
posted on
07/29/2006 6:11:07 AM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
To: The Red Zone
This sounds reasonable, if the original media reports are to be believed which would have the judge cut out of the loop. If the Judge was "out of the loop" why did he or she issue the warrent then?? Really desperate to manufacture some sore of fig leaf excuse for this nonsense on this one aren't you?
60
posted on
07/29/2006 6:14:43 AM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-113 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson