If there are criminals in the past administration, they should be prosecuted. That's the definition of justice. Partisanship has nothing to do with it. In fact, I'm convinced there are probably people in the immediate administration that should be prosecuted.
All I want to see is the evidence. Let the people make the decision as to whether they should be prosecuted and let the court render the verdict.
It's fashionable to embrace civil liberties!!! Move over you sexy advertisements selling nothing, I'm going trendy with my civil liberties! I love that quote, it's for the post-Bush 21st century.
When is MSNBC going to get rid of Joe Scarborough. Do we have to start a campaign to get rid of him? We need MSNBC to be MSNBC all day and have a progressive voice driving the discussion.
Once again, some troll has marked your comment as spam which I find despicable! Those that attempt this form of censorship should be rooted out and given a right good spanking as their antics are indicative of a child. I suggest that you repost your comment as a new thread; eventually those losers that misidentify comments as 'spam' will be tossed off YT and I hope that their IP address is barred from creating a new account.
The only way to stop these 'spamanators' is to repost your comment in a new thread; I can then remove the ones marked as spam and erase all sign of these malicious little buggers.
Kit Bond is a nasty, stupid, money-grubbing little jerk. He's a perfect example of how the Republican party was highjacked by nutbag Christian fundamentalists. The corporate media loves talking with assholes like Kit, because it bolsters their failing ratings and advertising revenues. Hey Kit: Nobody with a brain in their head believes any of the crap that comes out of your mouth.
Agreed! What a bastard. Nobody prosecuted Clinton for "failing to recognize" the war on terror because whenever he had tried to get Osama Bin Laden the Republicans had stopped him. Bob Dole said that if he had tried to go after him in Afghanistan the Republicans would have BOILED HIM IN OIL!!!! Bastards. According to Madelaine Albright he had a perfect chance to get Bin Laden and was made to pull back. What do you bet that if he had and Al Qaida had done 9/11 he would have been blamed?
hiya xhagast... question for you? why do u think the repukes (repubs) were against clinton attacking bin laden? money? politics? bin laden may be a cia operative ( i have read this one and thought it might be a bit of a reach) in otherwords what did the repubs gain by doing this?
what i do know is bush junior is friends and business partners in a lucrative biz w/laden (@#$%$##$%$@@) bush!
Besides opposing anything Clinton did(much like they are doing to Obama now but with a mayority in the house)I think they were in an isolationistic phase. Remember, Dubya won saying he did not want to go into the business of nation building. And immediately after he won he started getting ready to invade Iraq. 9/11 gave him the perfect excuse. With billions for the grafting in Iraq he had not trouble selling the war. To everybody but GOP generals with war experience.
The GOP's capacity for hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.
For instance, not just in this video but:
Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) was aghast. He was indignant as hell about how having a high public official involved in something like perjury and obstruction of justice can damage the very foundation on which our nation was built -- and he had the harsh words to show for it. (cont.)
"By his words and deeds he chose to place himself above the law. By his words and deeds he has undermined the rule of law in America to the great harm of this nation," the Kansas Republican said. "By his own words and deeds, he has undermined the truth-finding function of the judiciary, at great harm to that branch of our government. By his words and deeds, he had done great harm to the notions of honesty and integrity that form the underpinnings of this great republic." (cont.)
And here's the Brownback kicker: "We have lost many things over the past few months: trust in public officials, respect for the rule of law, confidence in the truth of the White House's public statements. But perhaps the most tragic loss has been the steady erosion of our societal standards." (cont.)
That's Brownback in his closed-door impeachment statement on President Bill Clinton, that was read into the Congressional Record on February 12, 1999. - You didnt get all excited thinking he was commenting on that Scooter Libby thing, did you? (cont.)
I can understand if you did. After all, Libby was convicted of those same charges and sentenced within federal guidelines to a 30-month prison sentence, only to have his friend George W. Bush decide that anything over, well, zero days in jail was "excessive" when it comes to a White House crony. (cont.)
But then again, Brownback is hardly alone in the hypocritical silence being shown by the very same Republican Senators who in 1999 voted guilty on both the perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Clinton. The vote took place on that February 12, with the Senate acquitting Clinton of both articles of impeachment -- the perjury charge got 45 guilty votes while the obstruction-of-justice article resulted in a 50-50 split. (cont.)
Of the 25 Republican Senators still in the Senate last year and who voted that day to convict Clinton on both articles of impeachment, not one of them has issued a public statement on the Libby sentence commutation since it occurred. - Not one.
And you're not going to believe this: What seems to be OK with them now, wasn't acceptable back in 1999. Here's Wayne Allard (R-CO) on President Clinton: "The Constitution is what preserves the rule of law, and guarantees that we remain a nation of laws, not of men.
"I hold the President to a higher standard because he is the chief law enforcement official of the nation. If he is above the law, then we have a double standard; one for the powerful, and one for the rest."
And John McCain (R-AZ) seemed to think that swearing to tell the truth is a pretty darned important thing to abide by:
"All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society. I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard."
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) gives a moving statement about how we should hope that history looks back kindly at how we observed the rule of law: I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed. The concept of equal justice under law and the importance of absolute truth in legal proceedings is the foundation of our justice system in the courts."
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) again on the issue of Clinton's impeachment: "A hundred years from now, when history looks back to this moment, we can hope for a conclusion that our Constitution has been applied fairly and survives, that we have come to principled judgments about matters of national importance, and that the rule of law in American has been sustained."
And George Voinovich (R-OH) made a good case for impeachment no matter the circumstances -- are we listening Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid? -- when he said "I sincerely believe that this country can survive the removal of a popular president who has forfeited public trust. But, our country cannot survive the abandonment of trust itself."
Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican party and providing such an array of examples. A very sound argument and I defy any Republican to dispute it.
How dare the GOP blame 9/11 on Clinton? If the GOP hadn't attacked Clinton with the "Wags the Dog" crap. When Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden in the first place. Perhaps Clinton could have finished what he started.
In the summer of 2001 Richard Clarke (NSA) was almost frantic in trying to warn the administration about an attack! When the Aug.6th 2001 PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." was presented to Bush. George told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass now." (and then he went fishing (on vacation for a month))
Can you imagine the outcry if Clinton had done this? - LOL- Like I said, the GOP's capacity for hypocrisy is truly astounding!
Clinton didn't do what he could have to thwart terrorism from Al-Qaeda. He also didn't have a 9/11 attack to respond to. I'm sure if he had, he would have gone much further with his own fight against terrorism.
I agree. If the GOP wasn't so busy trying to drag Clinton down (including the "Wags the Dog" BS) perhaps he could'a stayed focused on (and (as you say) had the political support necessary
to shut down bin Laden well before 9/11/01) However, since 9/11 Bush had made the bad situation much, much worse.
This isn't about punishment. It's about accountability. If OUR elected officials aren't accountable for their actions. If they can commit crimes against humanity and the American public without fear of being prosecuted. Then we're all doomed.
Accountability is our only defense against OUR representatives. Please don't give it up.
If there are criminals in the past administration, they should be prosecuted. That's the definition of justice. Partisanship has nothing to do with it. In fact, I'm convinced there are probably people in the immediate administration that should be prosecuted.
All I want to see is the evidence. Let the people make the decision as to whether they should be prosecuted and let the court render the verdict.
Redfingers 9 months ago
It's fashionable to embrace civil liberties!!! Move over you sexy advertisements selling nothing, I'm going trendy with my civil liberties! I love that quote, it's for the post-Bush 21st century.
pamasaurus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When is MSNBC going to get rid of Joe Scarborough. Do we have to start a campaign to get rid of him? We need MSNBC to be MSNBC all day and have a progressive voice driving the discussion.
tonyrich300 2 years ago 2
Once again, some troll has marked your comment as spam which I find despicable! Those that attempt this form of censorship should be rooted out and given a right good spanking as their antics are indicative of a child. I suggest that you repost your comment as a new thread; eventually those losers that misidentify comments as 'spam' will be tossed off YT and I hope that their IP address is barred from creating a new account.
dawgnpony 2 years ago
The only way to stop these 'spamanators' is to repost your comment in a new thread; I can then remove the ones marked as spam and erase all sign of these malicious little buggers.
DAP
dawgnpony 2 years ago
good find
dave777blaster 2 years ago 2
Kit Bond is a nasty, stupid, money-grubbing little jerk. He's a perfect example of how the Republican party was highjacked by nutbag Christian fundamentalists. The corporate media loves talking with assholes like Kit, because it bolsters their failing ratings and advertising revenues. Hey Kit: Nobody with a brain in their head believes any of the crap that comes out of your mouth.
art101tv 2 years ago 6
Agreed! What a bastard. Nobody prosecuted Clinton for "failing to recognize" the war on terror because whenever he had tried to get Osama Bin Laden the Republicans had stopped him. Bob Dole said that if he had tried to go after him in Afghanistan the Republicans would have BOILED HIM IN OIL!!!! Bastards. According to Madelaine Albright he had a perfect chance to get Bin Laden and was made to pull back. What do you bet that if he had and Al Qaida had done 9/11 he would have been blamed?
xhagast 2 years ago 3
hiya xhagast... question for you? why do u think the repukes (repubs) were against clinton attacking bin laden? money? politics? bin laden may be a cia operative ( i have read this one and thought it might be a bit of a reach) in otherwords what did the repubs gain by doing this?
what i do know is bush junior is friends and business partners in a lucrative biz w/laden (@#$%$##$%$@@) bush!
KILLAMANJARO3 2 years ago 2
Besides opposing anything Clinton did(much like they are doing to Obama now but with a mayority in the house)I think they were in an isolationistic phase. Remember, Dubya won saying he did not want to go into the business of nation building. And immediately after he won he started getting ready to invade Iraq. 9/11 gave him the perfect excuse. With billions for the grafting in Iraq he had not trouble selling the war. To everybody but GOP generals with war experience.
xhagast 2 years ago 2
The GOP's capacity for hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.
For instance, not just in this video but:
Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) was aghast. He was indignant as hell about how having a high public official involved in something like perjury and obstruction of justice can damage the very foundation on which our nation was built -- and he had the harsh words to show for it. (cont.)
im4wur 2 years ago 4
"By his words and deeds he chose to place himself above the law. By his words and deeds he has undermined the rule of law in America to the great harm of this nation," the Kansas Republican said. "By his own words and deeds, he has undermined the truth-finding function of the judiciary, at great harm to that branch of our government. By his words and deeds, he had done great harm to the notions of honesty and integrity that form the underpinnings of this great republic." (cont.)
im4wur 2 years ago 2
And here's the Brownback kicker: "We have lost many things over the past few months: trust in public officials, respect for the rule of law, confidence in the truth of the White House's public statements. But perhaps the most tragic loss has been the steady erosion of our societal standards." (cont.)
im4wur 2 years ago 2
That's Brownback in his closed-door impeachment statement on President Bill Clinton, that was read into the Congressional Record on February 12, 1999. - You didnt get all excited thinking he was commenting on that Scooter Libby thing, did you? (cont.)
im4wur 2 years ago 2
I can understand if you did. After all, Libby was convicted of those same charges and sentenced within federal guidelines to a 30-month prison sentence, only to have his friend George W. Bush decide that anything over, well, zero days in jail was "excessive" when it comes to a White House crony. (cont.)
im4wur 2 years ago 2
But then again, Brownback is hardly alone in the hypocritical silence being shown by the very same Republican Senators who in 1999 voted guilty on both the perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Clinton. The vote took place on that February 12, with the Senate acquitting Clinton of both articles of impeachment -- the perjury charge got 45 guilty votes while the obstruction-of-justice article resulted in a 50-50 split. (cont.)
im4wur 2 years ago
Of the 25 Republican Senators still in the Senate last year and who voted that day to convict Clinton on both articles of impeachment, not one of them has issued a public statement on the Libby sentence commutation since it occurred. - Not one.
im4wur 2 years ago
And you're not going to believe this: What seems to be OK with them now, wasn't acceptable back in 1999. Here's Wayne Allard (R-CO) on President Clinton: "The Constitution is what preserves the rule of law, and guarantees that we remain a nation of laws, not of men.
"I hold the President to a higher standard because he is the chief law enforcement official of the nation. If he is above the law, then we have a double standard; one for the powerful, and one for the rest."
im4wur 2 years ago
And John McCain (R-AZ) seemed to think that swearing to tell the truth is a pretty darned important thing to abide by:
"All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society. I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard."
im4wur 2 years ago
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) gives a moving statement about how we should hope that history looks back kindly at how we observed the rule of law: I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed. The concept of equal justice under law and the importance of absolute truth in legal proceedings is the foundation of our justice system in the courts."
im4wur 2 years ago
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) again on the issue of Clinton's impeachment: "A hundred years from now, when history looks back to this moment, we can hope for a conclusion that our Constitution has been applied fairly and survives, that we have come to principled judgments about matters of national importance, and that the rule of law in American has been sustained."
im4wur 2 years ago
And George Voinovich (R-OH) made a good case for impeachment no matter the circumstances -- are we listening Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid? -- when he said "I sincerely believe that this country can survive the removal of a popular president who has forfeited public trust. But, our country cannot survive the abandonment of trust itself."
im4wur 2 years ago
Now, the question before us. Is the rule of law applied evenly in the United States; regardless of political party?
Or does accountability only apply to the actions of a Democratic administration?
im4wur 2 years ago 4
Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican party and providing such an array of examples. A very sound argument and I defy any Republican to dispute it.
dawgnpony 2 years ago
I think I've just come up with my nerw bumber sticker:
"The GOP isn't right. They're just louder"
im4wur 2 years ago 3
wrt: "The GOP isn't right. They're just louder" - LOL - Almost immediately marked as spam. I must'a struck a nerve. - LOL
im4wur 2 years ago 3
To those that 'Mark as Spam' comments they don't like. Be advised, we've got your number and unlike you we believe in Free Speech. So knock it off!
dawgnpony 2 years ago
How dare the GOP blame 9/11 on Clinton? If the GOP hadn't attacked Clinton with the "Wags the Dog" crap. When Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden in the first place. Perhaps Clinton could have finished what he started.
im4wur 2 years ago 5
In the summer of 2001 Richard Clarke (NSA) was almost frantic in trying to warn the administration about an attack! When the Aug.6th 2001 PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." was presented to Bush. George told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass now." (and then he went fishing (on vacation for a month))
Can you imagine the outcry if Clinton had done this? - LOL- Like I said, the GOP's capacity for hypocrisy is truly astounding!
im4wur 2 years ago 6
"Richard Clarke: Bush IGNORED terrorism!" - ( watch?v=TyAUsWSLIUE )
im4wur 2 years ago 4
Clinton didn't do what he could have to thwart terrorism from Al-Qaeda. He also didn't have a 9/11 attack to respond to. I'm sure if he had, he would have gone much further with his own fight against terrorism.
Back2BackJack 2 years ago 3
I agree. If the GOP wasn't so busy trying to drag Clinton down (including the "Wags the Dog" BS) perhaps he could'a stayed focused on (and (as you say) had the political support necessary
to shut down bin Laden well before 9/11/01) However, since 9/11 Bush had made the bad situation much, much worse.
im4wur 2 years ago
This isn't about punishment. It's about accountability. If OUR elected officials aren't accountable for their actions. If they can commit crimes against humanity and the American public without fear of being prosecuted. Then we're all doomed.
Accountability is our only defense against OUR representatives. Please don't give it up.
im4wur 2 years ago 5