Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) Which has been in the headlines daily and he ADMITTED what he did, and he has a legal arguement that was he did was legal (FWIW). This is a conspiracy to hide tax evasion and obstruct justice alledgedly, in which the President led the charge. I still don't understand how that shouldnt' be just as big if not bigger? Here's my question...if everything in this report were true...what would we expect to happen due to it? Would we expect charges to be filed? Or Hillary has to apologize? Or anything? When Hillary's campaign was facing charges for improper campaign contributions or something, it got a lot of coverage, more I think than the acquittal got even. But it actually involved a court case...something tangible the media could point to and say "a-ha there's a story here." Heck, if I wanted to count up all the things that I've thought this Administration has done which were clearly wrong and could have deserved their own investigations but have gotten almost no press coverage and died off because the Republicans control the Congress, I'd probably have a couple dozen. (The missing $10 billion from the CPA in Iraq, transferring funds from Afghanistan to Iraq without Congressional approval...blah blah blah). If this is a conspiracy involving tax evasion and obstruction of justice...where are the charges being filed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Because one happened seven years ago. The other is happening right now and affecting people right now. What if the Clintons have a legal argument saying what they did is just fine? Would that suddenly make it all better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) Which has been in the headlines daily and he ADMITTED what he did, and he has a legal arguement that was he did was legal (FWIW). This is a conspiracy to hide tax evasion and obstruct justice alledgedly, in which the President led the charge. I still don't understand how that shouldnt' be just as big if not bigger? Are you serious? You think that tax evasion is more serious than illegal domestic spying? I think the spying is worse by an order of magnitude. But that aside for the moment, as we have established earlier in the thread, the big difference here is believability. We all accept Bush is doing this. With the Clinton thing, the believable news sources all make it pretty clear that there is virtually no evidence of any wrongdoing on Clinton's part. Heck, the prosecutor claiming to have endured 10 years of blockading could not provide one shred of evidence that such blockading occurred. I'm sorry, but I don't find much believability there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:17 PM) Because one happened seven years ago. The other is happening right now and affecting people right now. What if the Clintons have a legal argument saying what they did is just fine? Would that suddenly make it all better? So If Bush had just buried this for 7 years it shouldn't have been headline news? I would have thought potential obstruction of justice by a Presidential administration over a 7 year period would have made the story even bigger, not smaller. I would imagine that having even a flimsy legal arguement for something is better than obstructing justice, but I digress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:19 PM) Are you serious? You think that tax evasion is more serious than illegal domestic spying? I think the spying is worse by an order of magnitude. You're jumping in at the middle here, but I am talking about in terms of headlines. I think breaking news about tax evasion by a member of a President cabinet, accompanied by obstruction of justice by the President would make screaming headlines, but obviously I am wrong. Must be that damned right wing conspriacy keeping Bush scandals on the front page at the expense of those other news items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 01:56 PM) To paraphrase the bumpersticker...at least when Clinton lied, people didn't die! no oil for oil, dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:16 PM) Here's my question...if everything in this report were true...what would we expect to happen due to it? Would we expect charges to be filed? Or Hillary has to apologize? Or anything? When Hillary's campaign was facing charges for improper campaign contributions or something, it got a lot of coverage, more I think than the acquittal got even. But it actually involved a court case...something tangible the media could point to and say "a-ha there's a story here." Heck, if I wanted to count up all the things that I've thought this Administration has done which were clearly wrong and could have deserved their own investigations but have gotten almost no press coverage and died off because the Republicans control the Congress, I'd probably have a couple dozen. (The missing $10 billion from the CPA in Iraq, transferring funds from Afghanistan to Iraq without Congressional approval...blah blah blah). If this is a conspiracy involving tax evasion and obstruction of justice...where are the charges being filed? Slow down there, you are reading into this WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much. -I never said that the Clinton administration DID anything. Notice everything I said was prefaced with terms like allegedly and potentially. -I don't get what it matters what they would do about it, all I said was I thought it was important enough that it merited some serious media attention, and didn't understand why it hadn't. I don't see what potential court actions in the future have to do with what is being reported now? Are you saying that a scandal shouldn't be front page news if you can't drag someone to court immediately for it? I don't understand what you point was on any of that stuff. -How much "stuff" should it take to make headlines when the President of the USA is being accused of Obstruction of Justice again? So far everytime I have seen any accusation of President impropriety it has made headlines. Why would that be different today. Hell Nixons tapes of him blathering on at the White House were front page news 30 years later, yet this is buried on blogs and websites for days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balance Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 03:18 PM) Hit a google news search on Cisneros. It has been reported by a few different reputable groups now. I remembered seeing LA Times at the top of the list when I checked. Well, if the story is being reported by reputable news sources, it's therefore in the news. Where, then, is the purported bias that's keeping it out of the news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:34 PM) -How much "stuff" should it take to make headlines when the President of the USA is being accused of Obstruction of Justice again? You tell me. GWB's 2002 firing of prosecutor Frederick Black during his investigaton of Jack Abramoff over scandals in Guam sure smacks of Obstruction, doesn't it? former Assistant US Attorney in DC and current Exec. Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) siggested Black's dismissal "looks political and should be investigated." But it's not even a blip on the MSM radar. The 2002 inquiry of Abramoff wrongdoing promptly ended with Black's successor, of course. Maybe that's why BushCo has never felt the need to repay the Abramoff firm (Greenberg) the more than $300K they owe them for services during the the 2000 recount fiasco. Oh, wait, I forgot. Bush never met Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Still waiting for someone to give a good reason why Williams&Connolly filed so many briefs to keep the full report from the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 05:04 PM) Still waiting for someone to give a good reason why Williams&Connolly filed so many briefs to keep the full report from the public? Just a guess, but I'd say it was because they didn't want the full report to go public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 02:04 PM) Still waiting for someone to give a good reason why Williams&Connolly filed so many briefs to keep the full report from the public? So they could bill the Clintons for more hours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 01:34 PM) -I don't get what it matters what they would do about it, all I said was I thought it was important enough that it merited some serious media attention, and didn't understand why it hadn't. I don't see what potential court actions in the future have to do with what is being reported now? Are you saying that a scandal shouldn't be front page news if you can't drag someone to court immediately for it? I don't understand what you point was on any of that stuff. -How much "stuff" should it take to make headlines when the President of the USA is being accused of Obstruction of Justice again? So far everytime I have seen any accusation of President impropriety it has made headlines. Why would that be different today. Hell Nixons tapes of him blathering on at the White House were front page news 30 years later, yet this is buried on blogs and websites for days. Ok, let me put it this way...a lot of things get buried in blogs. Furthermore, there are a lot of accusations made against people in power. Not all of them have actual teeth. By my question "where are the charges" I'm quite literally asking to see some proof, beyond the fact that Clinton's lawyers worked to prevent its release, that this report is not just some fantasy created by a person with a vendetta against the Clintons. Charges of obstruction of justice and tax evasion are serious f***ing charges. If there's any teeth at all to these charges, then at the very least, a grand jury should have been convened to hear the evidence and consider indictments. If no grand jury was ever convened, then why should I believe a word that is said in the report, if even the authors of it didn't feel it was solid enough to at least take it to a grand jury and try to do something with the evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) Hit a google news search on Cisneros. It has been reported by a few different reputable groups now. I remembered seeing LA Times at the top of the list when I checked. Here's the LAT piece by the way. It's listed as 14 hours ago...so it may well have been in my morning paper or may be there tomorrow (was in a bit of a rush this morning so i did a lot of glancing @ stuff) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 05:04 PM) Still waiting for someone to give a good reason why Williams&Connolly filed so many briefs to keep the full report from the public? Because that's what any defendant with lots of legal funds would do. And again, the real problem, as pointed out, is that there is NO EVIDENCE OF A COVER-UP, or anything else illegal. Read the article in the actual news source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 05:16 PM) Here's the LAT piece by the way. It's listed as 14 hours ago...so it may well have been in my morning paper or may be there tomorrow (was in a bit of a rush this morning so i did a lot of glancing @ stuff) I also posted it on post #22, and people still don't want to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Left -----------------> Media The media always looks biased to one group of the other. Are you going to balance each article? Each edition? Should the media held the Lewinsky story until a positive story could also be run? Does it balance over a day? week? month? That is the brilliance of the GOP strategy. Every negative article is explained by liberal bias. Just listen to any talk radio. No media outlet hits the exact middle, neutral point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:07 PM) No media outlet hits the exact middle, neutral point. You know, given how many media outlets are out there, I wouldnt' be surprised if one actually did...problem is, since I have no idea where the exact middle, neutral point is myself, it's difficult to say for certain which one it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 QUOTE(Balance @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:43 PM) Well, if the story is being reported by reputable news sources, it's therefore in the news. Where, then, is the purported bias that's keeping it out of the news? It took like 5 days for that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 06:43 PM) It took like 5 days for that to happen. Give it up, man. The Democrats are going to fight tooth and nail to keep this from blowing into a scandal. They'll use whatever means necessary. Why? Because this potential scandal can derail Queen Hillary's senatorial reelection and presidential aspirations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 03:36 AM) Give it up, man. The Democrats are going to fight tooth and nail to keep this from blowing into a scandal. They'll use whatever means necessary. Why? Because this potential scandal can derail Queen Hillary's senatorial reelection and presidential aspirations. Funny that it's Republicans talking the most about Hillary in '08. She would lose rather easily to DeLay so I'm certain the Grand Old Party would love to see her as the Dem nominee. Both parties employ damage control, don't make this seem like the GOP encourages the airing of their dirty laundry and investigations. Everyone, in all walks of life, tries to fight any and all charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 With all this talk about Democrat media manipulation, you'd think they might actually control Congress or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 12:13 PM) Funny that it's Republicans talking the most about Hillary in '08. She would lose rather easily to DeLay so I'm certain the Grand Old Party would love to see her as the Dem nominee. Both parties employ damage control, don't make this seem like the GOP encourages the airing of their dirty laundry and investigations. Everyone, in all walks of life, tries to fight any and all charges. Tex, seriously, how long are you going to keep pressing the DeLay comments? It's been almost a year, and the schtick is getting really old now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Hillary would kick Delay's ass, which is one reason he won't get close to the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 09:50 AM) With all this talk about Democrat media manipulation, you'd think they might actually control Congress or something. Nobody is claiming the Democrats control the media. It's the liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts