dorbie 0
Recommended Posts
Quotecan you elaborate on a scenario where an inocent person speaking on the stand could incriminate themselves?
Sure. Just think of a person who has been convicted of a crime that he did not commit. OIr, think of an argument with your mother - where your words get twisted into something you didn't mean.
Lawyers are pros at it. I know this. And prosecutors, who have no fear of malpractice or malicious prosecution, are the worst/best at it.
QuoteSince I had done nothing wrong I went ahead and spoke to the cops and then I was let go.
I'd probably do the same thing. But I'd have eyes in the back of my head.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Andy9o8 0
Quotecan you elaborate on a scenario where an inocent person speaking on the stand could incriminate themselves?
...A question to which every married man since Adam has intuitively understood the answer...
Richards 0
QuoteSure. Just think of a person who has been convicted of a crime that he did not commit. OIr, think of an argument with your mother - where your words get twisted into something you didn't mean.
Lawyers are pros at it. I know this. And prosecutors, who have no fear of malpractice or malicious prosecution, are the worst/best at it.
Sounds a bit concerning. I guess I always presumed that even if that did happen, it was usually to some guy who was always in shit with the law anyway (not saying that is right). I never expected that it would happen to someone who is clean and honest all the time (presumably because there would be major public attention if that was happenning) but again it was just speculation on my part. If you are saying that clean honest citizens who have never broken a law in their life and aren't already known to the police have this happenning with some degree of regularity then I will take your word on it and be more cautious in the future
Thanks
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteQuotecan you elaborate on a scenario where an inocent person speaking on the stand could incriminate themselves?
...A question to which every married man since Adam has intuitively understood the answer...
Of course. I should have had a lawyer on hand when I said "I do"
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
funjumper101 15
ShrubCo really is amazing.
For the first time EVER, a Justice Department official invokes the Fifth Amendment.
Where is the right wing outrage? Isn't the Justice Department supposed to "appear" to be above partisan politics?
Kyle Sampson has just testified that Gonzales is a liar. So is Miers.
How come you righties aren't all over this?
If it was eight years ago, you would have been screaming bloody murder. Why the silence now? What happens in the future when the crap that ShrubCo has pulled is done by Dems? It's only wrong when Dems/liberals do it, eh?
A bad case of situational ethics?
What else could explain it?
For the first time EVER, a Justice Department official invokes the Fifth Amendment.
Where is the right wing outrage? Isn't the Justice Department supposed to "appear" to be above partisan politics?
Kyle Sampson has just testified that Gonzales is a liar. So is Miers.
How come you righties aren't all over this?
If it was eight years ago, you would have been screaming bloody murder. Why the silence now? What happens in the future when the crap that ShrubCo has pulled is done by Dems? It's only wrong when Dems/liberals do it, eh?
A bad case of situational ethics?
What else could explain it?
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuotehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors
If nothing illegal has happened, why does she have to worry about incriminating herself?
It's either some Republiscum saying he doesn't recall or invoking the 5th......
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
If nothing illegal has happened, why does she have to worry about incriminating herself?
Have you been living in a cave or something? Maybe you just think everyone else has and you think you can pull yet another snow job. The left goes on a witch hunt, Libby is destroyed (nobody reporting this even mentions the real charges) and you expect people to testify before a committee of political vultures? Did you even bother to read the coments by the jury members in the Libby case or look at WHO they were? Are you aware of the restrictions the judge imposed on Libby presenting evidence? He lawyers were BARRED from making certain claims about his own workload. You don't even need to look at phoney politicians masquerading as good cops though, just look what they did to Martha Stewart.
I wouldn't testify either, in fact from what I have seen of the American justice system I wouldn't talk to a federal agent of any kind, ever, PERIOD. I've never seen such a rapacious desire to get people at any cost. Stalin would be proud.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070326/D8O434EO0.html
The agenda will be fullfilled even if all teh Republiscum does this wiggle-dance. Voters will see what garbage the Repubs are and perhaps steer enough votes elsewhere.
Amazon 7
QuoteA bad case of situational ethics?
What else could explain it?
Probably off having a group circle jerk since they are all getting so tired of being apologists for their lord and master.
billvon 2,434
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Latest updates:
"I and others made staff recommendations but they were approved and signed off on by the principals" - Kyle Sampson
(The principals - Gonzales and Miers - claimed they weren't involved in the discussion and never saw documents.)
From Bloomberg today:
"The Justice Department said it provided inaccurate information to members of Congress in a February letter about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys."
Oops. See, Gonzales wasn't quite telling the truth when he first talked to congress, and the Justice Department provided some inaccurate information when they were asked about it - but now they will be honest. Really. Just turn off the tape recorder, and close the door, and never tell anyone what they said - and they'll be 100%, absolutely truthful. They promise!
Does anyone out there still think there's no reason to get these people under oath? Until we do, we will just hear lie after lie.
"I and others made staff recommendations but they were approved and signed off on by the principals" - Kyle Sampson
(The principals - Gonzales and Miers - claimed they weren't involved in the discussion and never saw documents.)
From Bloomberg today:
"The Justice Department said it provided inaccurate information to members of Congress in a February letter about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys."
Oops. See, Gonzales wasn't quite telling the truth when he first talked to congress, and the Justice Department provided some inaccurate information when they were asked about it - but now they will be honest. Really. Just turn off the tape recorder, and close the door, and never tell anyone what they said - and they'll be 100%, absolutely truthful. They promise!
Does anyone out there still think there's no reason to get these people under oath? Until we do, we will just hear lie after lie.
Richards 0
QuoteWhere is the right wing outrage?
I don't know? Ask the wing.
QuoteHow come you righties aren't all over this?
I'm a righty? My left/right positioning tends to depend on the issue, not a simplistic allegiance to a specific wing.
QuoteIf it was eight years ago, you would have been screaming bloody murder.
I would have? What have I said that would indicate that?
QuoteWhy the silence now? What happens in the future when the crap that ShrubCo has pulled is done by Dems? It's only wrong when Dems/liberals do it, eh?A bad case of situational ethics?
What else could explain it?
Did I say something to set you off? I interjected a question on this thread pertaining to pleading the fifth which would imply that I was not impressed with her doing that and now you feel that I am defending her actions? Unless I somehow aggravated you on a prior thread and this is a follow up I cannot see why my question bothered you so much. Maybe it's my natural charm.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
IanHarrop 37
QuoteDoes anyone out there still think there's no reason to get these people under oath? Until we do, we will just hear lie after lie
Somehow I don't think that getting them under oath would make any difference.
They only seem to tell the truth after it has become public knowledge they've been lying, So unless you can put proof that they been lying under their noses while they are under oath, don't expect the truth from them.
"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy
billvon 2,434
>They only seem to tell the truth after it has become public knowledge
>they've been lying . . .
Hasn't happened yet. Perhaps it will; time will tell. Or perhaps the threat of going to jail if they lie will be enough to convince them to stop lying.
>they've been lying . . .
Hasn't happened yet. Perhaps it will; time will tell. Or perhaps the threat of going to jail if they lie will be enough to convince them to stop lying.
IanHarrop 37
Quote>They only seem to tell the truth after it has become public knowledge
>they've been lying . . .
Hasn't happened yet. Perhaps it will; time will tell. Or perhaps the threat of going to jail if they lie will be enough to convince them to stop lying.
Gonzales's memory of being involved with the decision to let the US Attorneys go got better (or at least it was reported that it had been recognized that there was an error) after it was shown that he was involved. He has a very convenient memory.
I think these guys (GWB and his gang) think they're above the law.
"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy
jenfly00 0
QuoteI'm a righty? My left/right positioning tends to depend on the issue, not a simplistic allegiance to a specific wing.
BWAAAHHHAAA!!!!
-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
jenfly00 0
QuoteI think these guys (GWB and his gang) think they're above the law.
Dude! The have been above the law for seven years now. They've trashed the Bill of Rights till the only things left are guns, religion and the right not to house British troops.
It's a sad time for America.
-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
QuoteQuoteI'm a righty? My left/right positioning tends to depend on the issue, not a simplistic allegiance to a specific wing.
BWAAAHHHAAA!!!!
As another who's been unfairly painted with a partisan brush, I vouch for Richards. His stated positions in speakers corner have not been party-loyal and I've seen him ask questions and learn from the answers.
We should start a club. Remhwa could be the president. Or the club jester, depending.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
Andy9o8 0
QuoteWe should start a club. Remhwa could be the president. Or the club jester, depending.
I'll draft the Bylaws.
For a fee, of course.
Darius11 12
QuoteA bad case of situational ethics?
Just letting you know that I will be steeling this sentence from you. "Situational ethics". It describes a lot of our friends on here very well.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
TheAnvil 0
Does the name Scooter Libby ring a bell?
This non-issue about the dismissal of the attorneys is quite funny in the abstract. It's amazing how none of the mainstream media is asking the leftist morons why a president should not have the power to dismiss political appointees for any reason he desires.
Non issues such as this firing of attorneys have a front seat in the political news while interesting issues such as the utter failure of the Doha round of the GATT, the Congressman Jefferson saga ("Cold Cash"), "How 'bout that first 100 days?", SS reform, and the like take a back seat.
Disgusting. One of several reasons I'm not enjoying politics these days.
This non-issue about the dismissal of the attorneys is quite funny in the abstract. It's amazing how none of the mainstream media is asking the leftist morons why a president should not have the power to dismiss political appointees for any reason he desires.
Non issues such as this firing of attorneys have a front seat in the political news while interesting issues such as the utter failure of the Doha round of the GATT, the Congressman Jefferson saga ("Cold Cash"), "How 'bout that first 100 days?", SS reform, and the like take a back seat.
Disgusting. One of several reasons I'm not enjoying politics these days.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Richards 0
QuoteQuote***I'm a righty? My left/right positioning tends to depend on the issue, not a simplistic allegiance to a specific wing.
BWAAAHHHAAA!!!!
Hey, an admiring fan.
I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage with respect to a tailored response. You seem to know me and my views (or think you do) but I am not familiar with you. Your name (nickname) does sound familiar though. Have we conversed in the past on this website? Does your opinion of my political views stem from a prior argument you lost to me? I do not seem to recall having to educate you on anything. Anyway, no big deal, but if you can, please let me know which thread(s) you are arriving at this opinion from.
Cheers.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
JohnnyD 0
QuoteDoes the name Scooter Libby ring a bell?
Another asshat convicted of lying to federal prosecutors and impeding a federal investigation. I hope there is a very special cell for americans who commit crimes against America.
Quote
This non-issue about the dismissal of the attorneys is quite funny in the abstract. It's amazing how none of the mainstream media is asking the leftist morons why a president should not have the power to dismiss political appointees for any reason he desires.
He can. What he can't do is intentionally bypass the confirmation process and then lie to congress about it. They tend to get pissy when that happens. I'm amazed how people don't get that.
Have you been living in a cave or something? Maybe you just think everyone else has and you think you can pull yet another snow job. The left goes on a witch hunt, Libby is destroyed (nobody reporting this even mentions the real charges) and you expect people to testify before a committee of political vultures? Did you even bother to read the coments by the jury members in the Libby case or look at WHO they were? Are you aware of the restrictions the judge imposed on Libby presenting evidence? He lawyers were BARRED from making certain claims about his own workload. You don't even need to look at phoney politicians masquerading as good cops though, just look what they did to Martha Stewart.
I wouldn't testify either, in fact from what I have seen of the American justice system I wouldn't talk to a federal agent of any kind, ever, PERIOD. I've never seen such a rapacious desire to get people at any cost. Stalin would be proud.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070326/D8O434EO0.html
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites