Corruption and criminal activity in the democratic party?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:34 pm

I'm sure y'all already can guess my feelings about this bullshit. I expect Obama to call for a full investigation, to say the least:

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.
{. . .}
In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”
{. . .}
And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.

Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.

As for there being “no evidence” to support the FBI probe, a source with first-hand knowledge of the wiretaps called that “bull****.”

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000003098436&cpage=1 (There's a lot more in the full article)

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:51 pm

wow, on both counts.
don't know why I'm surprised that a politician can be bought or that the last administration would want to cover up and continue illegal wire tapping.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:27 pm

it's bush's fault.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:31 pm

Well of course. If they hadn't been doing wrong first they'd have never known of her wrong doing.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:15 am

Wonder how long it will take slide to get the talking point from on high. O0

Can't wait for the establishment's...err..administration's...response.

UFGirlluvr · Post by **UFGirlluvr** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:14 am

Kind of a misleading title. Yeah it was a democrat that was being shady to put it nicely but it was a member of the Republican leadership helping in covering up. Seems like no matter your party affiliation in this one you were corrupt and sketchy. This kind of stuff happens way to frequently and it doesn't really matter your party lines. Both sides are guilty of this kind of stuff.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:29 am

^^ Yeah, both sides are guilty. But the Dems are in charge now, they're the only ones with oversight power.

Frankly, I think we need a fresh approach to politics. No matter who's in charge, the problems are repeatedly the same.

So what do we do? I'm for a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits, but I'm afraid that the corruption is so systemic that it wouldn't do much good.

UFGirlluvr · Post by **UFGirlluvr** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:37 am

According to the article this happened in 2006 correct? That would fall under the previous administration so what would the Obama camp have to do with this?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:20 am

But they are in charge of oversight now. They have a responsibility to throw her in jail if she broke the law, even if it happened on someone else's watch. Statutes of limitation aren't affected by a regime change, so far as I know.

UFGirlluvr · Post by **UFGirlluvr** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:23 am

Well if you want to start going back and throwing people in jail then more than half the people ever associated with government especially the last administration should be thrown in jail. I think the other person mentioned in the article would be on the list,Alberto Gonzalez.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:59 pm

Agreed. But Obama is still blocking all investigation into the previous administration's crimes. Why is he doing that? Could it be that the dems have as much to lose as the pubs over all the shit they ALL did together to fuck us over? I think so.

UFGirlluvr · Post by **UFGirlluvr** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:37 pm

I think according to what I just read on CNN he is keeping the possibility of still going after these people open.Oh I agree I think no matter a person's political affiliation they have fucked us all over.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:42 pm

Interesting...I hope he does truly continue considering the option of full investigations and prosecutions.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:26 pm

^^^if he does, I can add that to Tip's friendly challenge thread.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:07 pm

Agreed...I would love, love to see a full investigation into the W administration's crimes. Why won't Obama get on with this project already? Hmm maybe he's just another political elite protecting the status quo? Nahhhh.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:19 pm

Hmm they're floating trial balloons apparently....

"Instead of referring to what anybody might have said ... I think it's important to refer to what the president said," Gibbs replied. He said that Obama has said "he does not believe that people are above the rule of law." And his spokesman reiterated Obama's position that any determination on whether laws were broken "would be rightly determined by the United States Department of Justice."

If an investigation for a "further accounting" of the interrogation decision-making is launched, Gibbs said that Obama might favor the kind of independent, bipartisan commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Congress set up that panel but did not run it.

"I think that the president would see a 9/11 commission, in all honesty, a model for how ... a commission might be set up," Gibbs said. He added, "I'm reminded that Congress has a pretty big say in something like that given their ability and their lawmaking power."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_interrogation_memos

I sincerely hope they DON'T fall into the trap of modeling the process after the 9/11 commission, which was an absolute joke of a project that produced a nearly worthless final report that did nothing to help the country.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:38 pm

Wonder how long it will take slide to get the talking point from on high. O0

Can't wait for the establishment's...err..administration's...response.

How about a STFU, AA? My comments are my own.

I don't know much about this story. I have not read the details, only headlines. However, if she broke the law, she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of it.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:20 pm

Just a little friendly shit talking...apologies...afroman was supposed to convey that.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:08 pm

Sorry man - over reaction on my part.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:40 pm

No worries as always bro.