Posted on 03/26/2007 1:14:42 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
I wish just once a Republican would have the stones to do what Liddy did:
Individual swearing in the witness (G Gordon Liddy):"Sir do you swear to the the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God"
Liddy: "No"
Then what happened?
the way Liddy tells it he was told that in that case they had no questions for him-to which he responded-"you brought me all the way up here and for this I missed my lunch" (I believe he was in prison at the time). He was dismissed and told that he would be provided a sandwich.
Bush fired Clinton's attorneys at the start of his term. Clinton fired Bush Sr's attorneys. Bush sr fired Reagan's attorneys.
Get your facts straight. This was the president's choice here and the scandal is a joke. But I hate incorrect talking points being repeated.
"The only two folks which I have grave doubts about their firing are the AGs in San Diego and Las Vegas. "
I can tell you why he should have been fired, from someone in the know in Las Vegas. Look up the GSting corruption scandal. It should have led directly to Harry Reid's land deals and Oscar Goodman's involvement with bribery. The fact that nothing came of the Reid investigation is itself criminal.
Planet goofy? Now why would I want to invade your private space in your land of 'fruits & nuts'? Maybe someday when you grow up you'll be a real conservative. We can only hope.
Good move. Good move.
Could we be getting to the bottom of why this is considered a "scandal"?
The witness negotiating for a blanket immunity deal.
It also givess "a HA" press for the left.
The fact is this ENTIRE thing is perjury trap.
I remember Dee Dee Myers saying "they serve at the pleasure of the president"
Perhaps we need a "pleasure of hte president" montage of democrats.
Unfortunately one can not plead the 5th amendment simply to avoid perjury charges from false testimony. Plus, of course, if congress does grant some sort of immunity the 5th amendment goes right out the window.
I think the term should be "Fitzgeralded"...
"Fitzgeralding", "to Fitzgerald" and "to be Fitzgeralded" should enter the lexicon and be an everlasting legacy of this hack and the Democrats as a party.
I don't think there is any chance that Bush will nominate Alberto Gonzales to SCOTUS. He doesn't have that much support from conservatives or Republicans in Senate, and Bush doesn't need a repeat of Miers fiasco, especially without control of Senate Judiciary committee. He might nominate another Hispanic (maybe Miguel Estrada or someone like him), but it won't be AG.
Too long. How about Fitzed?
"This is great---I hope all the aides plead the fifth."
Me, too!! Isn't it ironic (and hypocritical) that the biggest liars in this play (the Senators) are acting so high-minded and moral? Absolutely sickening.
Could be too short and a little too broad, less attributable for formal or literary description, like "McCarthyism" or "Gerrymandering", also may be mistaken for some other act. Probably more appropriate for informal, colloquial use, when parties understand the "circumstantial" meaning of the word.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805957/posts?page=3#3
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.