Posted on 10/04/2006 3:51:45 PM PDT by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
HIGHLIGHT EXCERPT OF TRANSCRIPT - 10/3/06 CBS NEWS EARLY SHOW
***** "SUSAN McGINNIS, anchor:
The FBI admits it had copies of Mark Foley's e-mails in July but it says it didnot follow up because House Republicans said they would handle the matter."
What do you mean Congress can't put an end to an Executive Branch function?
Men use emails and discussion boards like this.
That's how I feel too, and I suspect we've got plenty of company.
Most of these media clowns don't know an IM from an e-mail.
Classify it under "Dan Rather".
3) Bye Bye Woodward. Knocked him right off the front pages, as I said earlier today. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1713574/posts)
You might also be interested in this, copied here from Instapundit:
Scowcroft on 'State of Denial'
Brent Scowcroft released the following statement today (View image):
"I have spoken to Bob Woodward a number of times about a variety of subjects over the years, but I did not agree to be interviewed for his latest book. Further, there are statements in the book, directly or implicitly attributed to me, that did not and never could have come from me. I never discuss any personal conversations that I may have with President George H.W. Bush, and he never discusses with me any conversations that he has with President George W. Bush."
Scowcroft's office confirmed the authenticity of the statement and said it was released earlier today to the Associated Press. Curiously, I can find no mention of it on any AP-driven news site.
You should try checking with the Constitution first on these matters.
I didnt say that. MikeA said that.
Actually, the House and Senate can punish their members (and compel attendance ~ yea gads, even the Executive Office of the President can't do that).
I agree that this is clearly BS, but what I want to figure out is how exactly can we go about thrashing CBS for this type of crap. Is there ANYYTHING we can do to have consequences for CBS blatantly misleading in its "news"
Maybe she likes sodomy.
See ~ it'll flow better and I won't get the feeling you've jumped into the middle of the crick or somthin'.
THen, when they sell off everything in a cost avoidance move, we buy, take it over and turn it into FREE REPUBLIC Broadcasting System
The point is, the media didn't seem to mind about the FBI being "interfered with" when it was to help a Democrat.
Rush said today that the FBI had the emails but they said there was nothing in them that would trigger an investigation.
LOL. First of all Congress can't impeach any official without cause and second of all your statement has nothing to do with the FACT that Congress can not halt FBI investigations. The FBI is part of the executive branch. It's that separation of powers thing the constitution mentions here and there.
You should try checking with the Constitution first on these matters.
You should try understanding what you read and failing that try keeping your stupid advice to yourself.
My sentiments exactly. I highly doubt the FBI would forego an investigation simply because some politicians said "they'd handle it." Rush mentioned today that the FBI had the emails but that they decided no investigation was necessary since there wasn't anything in them that raised the alarm bells.
ROTFLMAO
Congress can do it for any reason that satisfies them. It's just a matter of votes.
You are right. Especially since the boy's parents did not want any action taken besides making sure Foley stopped contacting their son. The emails do not contain any criminal content. Yeah they are creepy, but can you imagine trying to get a DA to act on such flimsy evidence? Or a trial court trying to reach a verdict based on them? I can. Case dismissed. Thanks for your time.
As for the IMs. The only persons who should resign are the person who wrote the IM's( Foley) and anyone who knew about the IM's and withheld that knowledge ( seems Hastert is not in that group). I doubt many in Congress had prior knowledge of the IMs. They were sent from Foley's private AOL account and would not have been subject to any kind of monitoring.
Not defending Foley, but it does look like the release of the Email content and the IM's at this time is just a wee bit too convenient. Also too convenient is the press's inability to make the distinction between the Email and the IM's. But that couldn't be deliberate? Could it?
Period. End of story. King Charles died for that principle.
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.