Republicans Could Face New Ethics Pro...

Republicans Could Face New Ethics Probes

There are 16 comments on the The Associated Press story from Mar 6, 2007, titled Republicans Could Face New Ethics Probes . In it, The Associated Press reports that:

Republicans could face ethics investigations for contacting U.S. attorneys about pending cases, a jarring political development only four months after ethical lapses helped cost the GOP control of Congress.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Associated Press.

Jones

United States

#1 Mar 7, 2007
Obviously, these U.S. Federal attorneys have a huge political power as proved in the Scooter Libby case but they are political appointees and can be fired for any reason or none at all.
In the case of Scooter Libby prosecutor Fitzgerald proved that if he wants to put any political opponent in prison, he definitely could by all means. The Scooter Libby trial proved that these political attorneys can go after the White House most important people and start investigation “leak of a name” when it was known before Libby’s investigation started that it was Richard Armitage that was the source of the leak.
However, Libby was still investigated for the “crime” that Armitage admitted to do, only because prosecutor Fitzgerald wanted to put Libby in jail. Fitzgerald was able to “find something” wrong about Libby that was under investigation of "crime" that he never done-the leak of the name by Armitage.
Obviously, The White House was right and even obliged to get rid of liberal anti-White House powerful attorneys that presented major risk and hazard to the White House and could easily put anybody in the White House in prison for political reasons, rather than for any real crime.
MrBill

United States

#2 Mar 7, 2007
SHOCK:

You can't gat away with everthing anymore, you crooked bastards.

“That's not Science;”

Since: Dec 06

that's a shell game!

#3 Mar 7, 2007
Jones wrote:
Obviously, these U.S. Federal attorneys have a huge political power as proved in the Scooter Libby case but they are political appointees and can be fired for any reason or none at all.
In the case of Scooter Libby prosecutor Fitzgerald proved that if he wants to put any political opponent in prison, he definitely could by all means. The Scooter Libby trial proved that these political attorneys can go after the White House most important people and start investigation “leak of a name” when it was known before Libby’s investigation started that it was Richard Armitage that was the source of the leak.
However, Libby was still investigated for the “crime” that Armitage admitted to do, only because prosecutor Fitzgerald wanted to put Libby in jail. Fitzgerald was able to “find something” wrong about Libby that was under investigation of "crime" that he never done-the leak of the name by Armitage.
Obviously, The White House was right and even obliged to get rid of liberal anti-White House powerful attorneys that presented major risk and hazard to the White House and could easily put anybody in the White House in prison for political reasons, rather than for any real crime.
Disconcerting.
MrBill

United States

#4 Mar 7, 2007
Jones wrote:
Obviously, these U.S. Federal attorneys have a huge political power as proved in the Scooter Libby case but they are political appointees and can be fired for any reason or none at all.
In the case of Scooter Libby prosecutor Fitzgerald proved that if he wants to put any political opponent in prison, he definitely could by all means. The Scooter Libby trial proved that these political attorneys can go after the White House most important people and start investigation “leak of a name” when it was known before Libby’s investigation started that it was Richard Armitage that was the source of the leak.
However, Libby was still investigated for the “crime” that Armitage admitted to do, only because prosecutor Fitzgerald wanted to put Libby in jail. Fitzgerald was able to “find something” wrong about Libby that was under investigation of "crime" that he never done-the leak of the name by Armitage.
Obviously, The White House was right and even obliged to get rid of liberal anti-White House powerful attorneys that presented major risk and hazard to the White House and could easily put anybody in the White House in prison for political reasons, rather than for any real crime.
Everything you say is a lie. You should be in Bush's cabinet,(unless you already are.)
Lance Winslow

Santa Clara, CA

#5 Mar 7, 2007
Ethics ?
GOP don't need no stinkin' ethics.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#6 Mar 7, 2007
Shouldn't they be investivagated year round for this? By "they" I mean all pubic office holders.

Since: Feb 07

Orlando, Florida

#7 Mar 7, 2007
Jones wrote:
Obviously, these U.S. Federal attorneys have a huge political power as proved in the Scooter Libby case but they are political appointees and can be fired for any reason or none at all.
In the case of Scooter Libby prosecutor Fitzgerald proved that if he wants to put any political opponent in prison, he definitely could by all means. The Scooter Libby trial proved that these political attorneys can go after the White House most important people and start investigation “leak of a name” when it was known before Libby’s investigation started that it was Richard Armitage that was the source of the leak.
However, Libby was still investigated for the “crime” that Armitage admitted to do, only because prosecutor Fitzgerald wanted to put Libby in jail. Fitzgerald was able to “find something” wrong about Libby that was under investigation of "crime" that he never done-the leak of the name by Armitage.
Obviously, The White House was right and even obliged to get rid of liberal anti-White House powerful attorneys that presented major risk and hazard to the White House and could easily put anybody in the White House in prison for political reasons, rather than for any real crime.
Well Jones....Libby was not toally innocent.. he lied..and if memory serves the republicans made a big deal about that in the Clinton BJ scandal.... I am "sure" you were just as offended about the attacks on the Whitehouse when "they" were going after Clinton....right?...payback is a ***** sometimes
Joe Shmoe

United States

#8 Mar 7, 2007
They can start with an anal probe.
Jones

United States

#9 Mar 8, 2007
ppk007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Jones....Libby was not toally innocent.. he lied..and if memory serves the republicans made a big deal about that in the Clinton BJ scandal.... I am "sure" you were just as offended about the attacks on the Whitehouse when "they" were going after Clinton....right?...payback is a ***** sometimes
Libby did not lie before Fitzgerald started his investigation. Libby talked to few left wing liberal reporters and was not accurate about what he said to them. So what...?
Is it a crime according to the constitution not to be consistent or accurate about what someone said to left wing liberal reporters? Obviously not.
The case had nothing to do with Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame that was not a CIA agent.
Fitzgerald knew that it was not about leak of the famous Valerie Plame name that was done by Armitage without being accused for any wrongdoing about it.
Why the Jury thought that the case was about the war in Iraq and Joe Wilson lies and not about Libby?
Obviously, the overzealous Fitzgerald did all he could to confuse the Jury and to make it a political trial against the White House decision to go to war in Iraq, which is wrong and against the constitution of US.

Since: Feb 07

Orlando, Florida

#10 Mar 8, 2007
Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
Libby did not lie before Fitzgerald started his investigation. Libby talked to few left wing liberal reporters and was not accurate about what he said to them. So what...?
Is it a crime according to the constitution not to be consistent or accurate about what someone said to left wing liberal reporters? Obviously not.
The case had nothing to do with Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame that was not a CIA agent.
Fitzgerald knew that it was not about leak of the famous Valerie Plame name that was done by Armitage without being accused for any wrongdoing about it.
Why the Jury thought that the case was about the war in Iraq and Joe Wilson lies and not about Libby?
Obviously, the overzealous Fitzgerald did all he could to confuse the Jury and to make it a political trial against the White House decision to go to war in Iraq, which is wrong and against the constitution of US.
I notice you didn't even address the Clinton prosecution.

Libby lied.... does it really matter of he lied before the prosecution started or after...or if the moon was full or not...etc...etc..

It is obviously a crime... Libby got convicted... he had a defense attorney... the jury as well as the judge reviewed the accusations.

Well was Fitzgerald anymore overzealous than Clinton's Special Prosecutor Ken Starr?

And which case (Libby or Clinton) had really more to do with national security. Did Clinton possibly somehow gave out national secrets or put a CIA analyst / agent in danger getting a BJ?

Here is the story of the who and what about Plame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

Lastly, to correct your post, Libby did not give this information to the liberal media...if you will conduct a little research into this matter you will discover that columnist Robert Novak first ran the story on Plame in July 2003... Novak is known to be VERY conservative in his politics. Also read what Novak said about Armitage trying to say he (Armitage) was the leak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Novak
Jones

United States

#11 Mar 8, 2007
ppk007 wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice you didn't even address the Clinton prosecution.
Libby lied.... does it really matter of he lied before the prosecution started or after...or if the moon was full or not...etc...etc..
It is obviously a crime... Libby got convicted... he had a defense attorney... the jury as well as the judge reviewed the accusations.
Well was Fitzgerald anymore overzealous than Clinton's Special Prosecutor Ken Starr?
And which case (Libby or Clinton) had really more to do with national security. Did Clinton possibly somehow gave out national secrets or put a CIA analyst / agent in danger getting a BJ?
Here is the story of the who and what about Plame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
Lastly, to correct your post, Libby did not give this information to the liberal media...if you will conduct a little research into this matter you will discover that columnist Robert Novak first ran the story on Plame in July 2003... Novak is known to be VERY conservative in his politics. Also read what Novak said about Armitage trying to say he (Armitage) was the leak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Novak
According to your Wikipedia reference Fitzgerald knew that the true leaker of the name Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage before he convened grand Jury to probe Libby for Intelligence Identity Protection Act or for leaking that same name.
This means that Fitzgerald acted against the constitutional rights of Libby by blaming him in front of a Grand Jury for “crimeless crime” which has never been a crime and that he knew that it was someone else by the name Armitage who leaked the Plame name. Fitzgerald was so overzealous that he wrongfully told the Judge and the Jury the lie that he did not know if Valerie Plame was a CIA agent which he knew she has never been, so as to keep blaming Libby for a crime that never been a crime for Armitage which is a disgraceful act of Fitzgerald.
Hopefully US history will remember and condemn Fitzgerald as vicious and overzealous prosecutor that used his powerful position to wrongfully put Libby in prison for his political views of the war in Iraq, and as scapegoat of the White House.

Since: Feb 07

Orlando, Florida

#12 Mar 8, 2007
Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
According to your Wikipedia reference Fitzgerald knew that the true leaker of the name Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage before he convened grand Jury to probe Libby for Intelligence Identity Protection Act or for leaking that same name.
This means that Fitzgerald acted against the constitutional rights of Libby by blaming him in front of a Grand Jury for “crimeless crime” which has never been a crime and that he knew that it was someone else by the name Armitage who leaked the Plame name. Fitzgerald was so overzealous that he wrongfully told the Judge and the Jury the lie that he did not know if Valerie Plame was a CIA agent which he knew she has never been, so as to keep blaming Libby for a crime that never been a crime for Armitage which is a disgraceful act of Fitzgerald.
Hopefully US history will remember and condemn Fitzgerald as vicious and overzealous prosecutor that used his powerful position to wrongfully put Libby in prison for his political views of the war in Iraq, and as scapegoat of the White House.
YES, I will agree with you that Libby was a "scapegoat of the White House"..... probably someone higher than Libby in the White House needs to be prosecuted.

But look at some of your past post...you had a problem with the prosecutor going after anyone in the Whitehouse (for political reasons)..... Libby was found guilty of crimes...and yes he was the scapegoat for the crimes...
Jones

United States

#13 Mar 8, 2007
ppk007 wrote:
<quoted text>
YES, I will agree with you that Libby was a "scapegoat of the White House"..... probably someone higher than Libby in the White House needs to be prosecuted.
But look at some of your past post...you had a problem with the prosecutor going after anyone in the Whitehouse (for political reasons)..... Libby was found guilty of crimes...and yes he was the scapegoat for the crimes...
You are right. The White House must fire and get rid off these liberal attorneys that are after everybody in the White House...before it will be too late...

Since: Feb 07

Orlando, Florida

#14 Mar 8, 2007
Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. The White House must fire and get rid off these liberal attorneys that are after everybody in the White House...before it will be too late...
Well, wrong again...I was just waiting for you to go there....... Prosecutor Fitzgerald
was appointed to his position under the GWB Adm.

Please refer to this website :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgera...

In the particular read this paragraph from that website:

"On September 1, 2001, Fitzgerald was nominated for the position of U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois on the recommendation of U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation), a Republican from Illinois. On October 24, 2001, the nomination was confirmed by the Senate"

Recommend by a Republican Senator....during the GWB Adm....and confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate (2001)...Yeah this guy is a far left liberal...NOT !!!!!!!!!!

You will also see that Mr. Fitzgerald has a very well documented career...involved in such cases as John Gotti and several cases against terrorist to include Osama bin Laden.

They (Bush Adm) can go ahead and fire Mr. Fitzgerald if they wish....they (Bush Adm) will just have to admit that they were wrong in hiring him in the first place..//:-)

I love it when a plan comes together.
MrBill

United States

#15 Mar 12, 2007
Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
According to your Wikipedia reference Fitzgerald knew that the true leaker of the name Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage before he convened grand Jury to probe Libby for Intelligence Identity Protection Act or for leaking that same name.
This means that Fitzgerald acted against the constitutional rights of Libby by blaming him in front of a Grand Jury for “crimeless crime” which has never been a crime and that he knew that it was someone else by the name Armitage who leaked the Plame name. Fitzgerald was so overzealous that he wrongfully told the Judge and the Jury the lie that he did not know if Valerie Plame was a CIA agent which he knew she has never been, so as to keep blaming Libby for a crime that never been a crime for Armitage which is a disgraceful act of Fitzgerald.
Hopefully US history will remember and condemn Fitzgerald as vicious and overzealous prosecutor that used his powerful position to wrongfully put Libby in prison for his political views of the war in Iraq, and as scapegoat of the White House.
Not only are you a liar, you can't think.

The state of mind of the 'leaker' cannot be known unless the leaker testifies to it. I don't remember Cheney, Card, or Rove, or (or even your 'lie' sacrificial lamb, Armatage,) confessing to the leak, never mind their state of mind while committing this dastardly and unpatriotic act. We all know it was Cheney. What was Cheney's 'state of mind' when he betrayed an agent of he United States?

BTW, that's rich: "your Wikipedia reference." Ask Wikipedia which room in the White House is Osama Bin Laden hiding in?
MrBill

United States

#16 Mar 12, 2007
Who are you "Jones?" Are you really Andrew Card? You have so few scruples, that I think you are he.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Doc Hastings Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Drone Use OK'ed for Agricultural, Real Estate C... (Feb '15) Feb '15 Peter Simmons 2
News Sen. Pat Roberts grabs early lead in Kansas GOP... (Aug '14) Aug '14 Asian Guy 5
News Tea party still has election hopes as chances d... (Jul '14) Jul '14 woofpack 19
News In historic vote, House backs medical marijuana (May '14) Jun '14 Cordwainer Trout 6
News McCain: no global warming action until the left... (Mar '14) Mar '14 SpaceBlues 1
News Survey: Many Americans Don't Know What Fracking Is (May '13) Dec '13 d pantz 217
News House Republicans vote to deport DREAMers (Jun '13) Jun '13 See the Light 9
More from around the web