1. Bushco war crimes.
D of J did not even find a basis to write a damn letter to the respective bar organizations of Yoo and Bybee, let alone a resaon to prosecute people who tortured people to death.
2. Imitation of Bushco (the sincerest form of flattery).
In all legal cases began against Buscho by others, D of J has taken the exact same position as Bushco took in that case, or worse.
3. Banksters
The banksters got away with economic murder and all kinds of fraud and deceit.
4. John McCain's campaign violations.
McCain was not prosecuted for violating campaign laws, some of which bear his name, even though the complaint filed against him had been filed by the DNC, obviously in support of Obama. FEC and/or D of J let him, who is
still a sitting Senator, simply pay back the money and be on his way, with no scandal.
5. Roger Clemens
Despite shameful inaction on items 1 through 4 above, we are now in the SECOND taxpayer financed trial of Roger Clemens for the heinous crime of--wait for it-- allegedly lying about playing baseball on steroids.(On this one, we must also question the priorities of Congress.
What's next? Hearing about whether rock stars perform while high?
And Holder says this is a very good use of taxpayer money and D of J's time and effort.
I could care less if Clemens played on steroids, but I am sure ticked off about war crimes and destruction of the global economy.
6. Despite shameful inaction on items 1 through 4 above, D of J is vigorously prosecuting Joh Not only is the D of J prosecuting John Edwards for violating campaign laws, but it is doing so in the sleaziest way. Jurors are not supposed to convict Edwards for being a very bad husband or a very bad baby daddy.
I have little sympathy for him, but his children don't need any of that said under oath. However, while doing a bang up job (no pun intended) of putting his character on trial, it is doing a lousy job of proving he broke any campaign laws.
By bringing in things like Elizabeth Edwards bearning her scarred breasts to Edwards and others, the D of J is pretty obviously trying to influence the jury to convict Edwerds for being a bad man and I think that stinks.
What the chief donor, Bunny Mellon said:
During this period Mellon wrote a note to Young saying: “I was sitting alone in a grim mood — furious that the press attacked Senator Edwards on the price of a haircut. But it inspired me — from now on, all haircuts, etc. that are necessary and important for his campaign — please send the bills to me... It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Lambert_MellonShe paid bills for a FRIEND to save him from embarrassment "without government restrictions," meaning without having to comply with campaign laws. That spells intent to make a gift, not a campaign donation to a candidate. And I understand she accounted for gifts on her tax returns.
Who is the victim here? The public? No, this money was not raised from the public. The donor, Ms. Mellon? Hardly.
Wait. What about John Ensign and his family? His parents reported to the IRS that they made gifts to his mistress and her husband and their children, when they really paid a bribe to the husband for his silence, to avoid embarrassment to their son. Where is the D of J prosecution over that?
Make it 0 for 7. If I keep typing, more will probably some to me, so I'll stop now.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
