Why haven't Dems brought up Roberts Iran Contra links?

[OzarkDem]

When this information first surfaced months ago - that he was involved in setting up the company that illegally funnelled money in Iran Contra.

As I recall, the Washington insiders on this forum were indignant that anyone would suggest that Dems including Kerry weren't working on this and that it would be discussed.

Here we are again, with nothing. Dems leaders can't defend themselves on this one. I can't believe our Founding Fathers would condone ignoring a SCOTUS candidate's connections to treasonous activities.

What do these people stand for anyway?

[whistle]

1. They want him confirmed....

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. "They," as in Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Feingold...?

:shrug:

[CottonBear]

2. Why haven't they asked him about his role as a * lawyer in Selection 2000?

:shrug:

[hughee99]

40. Why would this disqualify him?

Sure the decision the SCOTUS made was bad, but how is this the lawyer's fault? In what way would this help us keep him off the court?

[jenn1977]

3. I heard one of them bring it up I believe it was yesterday

but they didn't take it very far of course. Sorry I can't remember who!

[OzarkDem]

4. I guess they were afraid

that the Republicans might get mad, heaven knows we shouldn't anger them.

I sincerely wish I lived in the same state as one of these so-called leaders. I would be filing my petition to get on the ballot to run against them now.

[etherealtruth]

27. Someone did this morning ...

I can't recall whom ...Roberts replied that he had no memory of doing anything r/t Iran Contra ... the senator speaking pointed out that they weren't given his memos they would never know.

[NYCGirl]

5. Probably because the WH refuses to release the information on it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/24/AR2005082402016.html

After the release of about 60,000 documents detailing the work of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., Democratic senators are setting their sights on what was not in the huge cache of papers: more than 2,100 memos and letters that have been withheld by government archivists working in concert with the Bush White House.

The subjects of the Reagan-era documents have been released, but their contents for now have been withheld. Those topics are, Democrats say, at a minimum intriguing: Roberts commenting on presidential pardons, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and aspects of what would become known as the Iran-contra scandal. One of the still-secret memos is from the young White House lawyer to then-Reagan aide Patrick J. Buchanan in March 1986. The topic: aid to Nicaraguans fighting the leftist Sandinista government.

With Senate hearings two weeks away, Democrats privately say the documents that have come to light about Roberts's White House work from 1981 through 1986 probably do not contain disclosures that would threaten his confirmation to the Supreme Court. But some Democratic senators -- working with liberal special-interest groups opposed to Roberts -- consider the other documents potentially relevant and are pressuring archivists and the White House to release them before the public hearings begin.

Despite Democrats' suspicions about why so many documents about such politically sensitive issues were withheld, officials at the National Archives said there is a benign explanation.

[OzarkDem]

6. Not good enough. There's plenty of evidence available

to warrant asking him a lot of questions about it. A whole lot. They don't need to have complete documentation.

They could manage at least 2 or 3 hours of questioning on the topic, if not more. Enough to raise questions about his ethics.

We expect them to protect our democracy, not apologize.

[NYCGirl]

7. Well then, call 'em and tell 'em. NT

[blm]

8. There was general reference to it, but without the needed papers that were

held back by WH, it's difficult to craft the question you need when you have no idea the details or the extent of his participation.

I had really hoped Kennedy would pound him on this.

[OzarkDem]

9. Sorry, blm, I disagree

There's always an excuse from these people. They don't need to provide evidence he was the one who lawyered Iran Contra.

There was evidence that Roberts was the person in the Solicitor General's office who people were referred to when inquiring about setting up the organization:

http://www.democrats.com/roberts-iran-contra

Senators should be yelling loud and clear that they oppose his nomination because he had anything remotely to do with Iran Contra.

There's plenty of evidence of that already.

[blm]

10. Yes, but, then you are forced to accuse him of a crime without knowing

what his involvement is and to what extent.

You may think it's easy for a Dem to go in front of cameras and make accusations based on what they think they know, because GOPs do it all the time - but if a Dem does it, ANY inaccuracy gets spun into a shitstorm against them.

[OzarkDem]

14. Its not necessary to accuse him of a crime

It should be enough to bring up his work with those associated with Iran Contra (which has been documented) and how he feels about what they did.

They should ask him if he approved of the actions of those who worked around him who were subverting the constitution in Iran-Contra.

He should be asked why he didn't do something to intervene in illegal activities.

He should be asked if he would do the same thing again.


He should explain how we can ask him to render judgement in the highest court of the land if his judgement in the past was so obviously flawed. Has he had some sort of epiphany in the interim that has suddenly made him a more moral person?

[Dr Fate]

20. They could also ask if he thinks they should have all the documents...

...and then ask "Would you want to make a court decision knowing that info was being with held? That is what you are asking us to do."

[blm]

23. And I believe Feinstein should have taken that route if she was going to

bring it up.

[Dr Fate]

18. Did they bring that up- and compare this to the fake "Brownie" resume

Seems like a great opportunity to ask him why he thinks those documents were suppressed, and then bring up the "Brownie" resume.

"In light of the forged Brownie resume- we cant just take Bush's word for it-and frankly Mr. Roberts, we cant take your word either. Dont you think we should have access to ALL the documents Mr. Roberts? Would you want to make a court decision knowing that available facts are being supressed? Well, neither do we..."

That was not difficult for me to craft at all- it took about 30 seconds. And I think common sense viwers would appreciate it.

But I'm being silly- I've only Republicans fight like that. Makes me jealous.

I'm sooooo close to giving up on these Democrats. I read great talking points on DU and hear great arguments on AAR everyday- but I NEVER hear any DEMs use any of it.

[blm]

24. Good point.

.

[Dr Fate]

25. There are THOUSANDS of good points on DU and AAR.

But what good do they do if DEMs are too frightened of the media or too out of touch with us to use them?

It frustrates me so much- I am really coming to my wits end- even after the hurricane we get the same crap.

[Zhade]

11. Might as well ask why Kerry voted for John Negroponte.

I mean, Kerry investigated IranContra, and Negroponte was involved in that, but Kerry voted to confirm him as UN ambassador anyway.

Go figure.

I also heard zero on BCCI and IC from Kerry during the election.

[blm]

17. Kerry did mention both. MSM didn't discuss what he said,

And, of course, while you're dumping on Kerry as such a loathsome creature, you are welcome to share with us the name of ONE OTHER lawmaker who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than Kerry, or has effected this nation's history more positively than John Kerry has over the last 35 years.

If you could, it would give us all a better gauge and understanding of your own personal standard for politicians and lawmakers. I mean, if Kerry's efforts score so low with you, where could the other Dem lawmakers possibly stand? Or even any Green lawmaker?

[Zhade]

31. How about trying to explain away Kerry voting for Negroponte?

I notice you ignored that part - possibly because, well, you can't.

[blm]

32. Actually I have done so more than a few times here at DU.

The best reasoning I can give is that Kerry and other tough senators, feel that they know exactly how Negroponte operates and Negroponte knows that they know how he has operated and how he was caught and it makes it easier for them to monitor him.

They might not have that knowledge and capability with another choice.


And, Zhade, you don't really want to get into what questions are ignored, do you?

Because when it comes down to it, I have yet to see a RATIONAL explanantion why someone claims they hate government corruption, yet dumps on the ONE lawmaker who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history.

Sure would be easier to know what type of standard you have developed for politicians.

[Zhade]

33. Nice cop-out.

Vote for someone involved in criminal activity you yourself investigated, because then you can watch him closely, rather than NOT VOTING FOR HIM AT ALL and working against him getting into a position of power again?

A+ for effort, F for logic.

But at least you did try.

[blm]

35. It's logical if you're logical. Negroponte was passing overwhelmingly...

Kerry is not a stupid man or a blind one, as his record proves. He knows Negroponte. Nefroponte also knows Kerry and senators like Kennedy know him, and and is less likely to pull a move thinking he can get away with it.

Are you really so unfamiliar with all Kerry's years of work as to have difficulty understanding him and his motives?

Are you really so unfamiliar with all his years of work that you cop out every time you are asked to put up YOUR standard for governance and who has proven to you that THEY bear the anti=government corruption standard?

[Zhade]

36. Not unfamiliar at all.

Which is why your excuse (I shouldn't have said cop-out, since you did attempt to answer) holds absolutely zero weight with me.

It's a senseless attempt to absolve Kerry of that vote. I understand your partisan nature with regards to Kerry will always lead you to excusing him, but at least offer a logical excuse.

It makes zero sense for Kerry to have voted for a criminal he himself helped investigate. To date, you have not offered a satisfactory explanation of that vote - I don't think there IS one.

Are you really so blinded by loyalty to him that you think non-partisans will see your excuse as making any sense? (See what I did there? I used an example of your "do you still beat your wife" rhetoric.)

[blm]

37. No, I just know how to FACTOR in his entire record to make logical

assessments. As I would do with any and all lawmakers. Records and deeds matter, and I believe only the facts about those offer the clues behind what motivates a lawmaker's choices and decisions.

To attack a lawmaker without factoring in historic record is dangerously ignorant, imo.


Now, about which one of us REALLY avoids answers.....hmmmmmmm.

[Zhade]

41. Still reads as an unfathomable excuse to me.

I find it illogical and very unconvincing - I know that *I* couldn't vote for a criminal I'd investigated.

[karynnj]

38. self delete

[emulatorloo]

12. ATTN OZARK DEM: Apparently DIFI did, Roberts went all "I Don't Recall"

a thread this morning just a few pages back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4778230

[OzarkDem]

15. Not enough

Just accepting an "I don't know" isn't enough. Is there anyone on the committee with prosecutorial experience? If so, they should know how to ask questions to get more information out of him.

[Dr Fate]

16. But if they had pressesd the issue, Hannity would compare them to Moveon.

n/t

[OzarkDem]

19. Joking, right?

[Dr Fate]

21. I wish I was. That is what the DEM "strategists" really think.

The strategists who lost the last 3 elections, I might add.

[blm]

22. replied to wrong thread.

.

[LittleClarkie]

26. Which of us are the Washington insiders

Is there a secret handshake or something?

Or are you ass-u-me-ing that some are insiders, and then ass-u-me-ing that you know which ones they are?

[OzarkDem]

28. Go back and read the posts on this topic

in the weeks before Roberts' hearing began. You'll see quite a few people who kept "reassuring" us that Dems would bring this issue up.

Do you think its an important issue or not?

[TayTay]

29. I was trying to get more info

Complication one was that there were two John Roberts in the Reagan Admin. Got to get the right one.

Two, as someone said, they ain't releasing the documentation. I went back through years of LexiNexi stuff, but it was murky at best. (Bolton was easy to trace through Iran-Contra. His filthy mitts were all over the obstruction stuff. Roberts is harder to pin down.)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

30. ........

[cranston36]

34. Because Roberts will end abortion on demand

They haven't given Roberts a hard time because even though everyone talks about limitless freedom in the United States 'Abortion on Demand' or 'Lifestyles Abortions' are so vastly unpopular that we as a nation will do anything to get rid of it.

Roberts is a one-trick pony.

We must have reasonable legislation about abortions. There are many children being lost that should not.

[Dr Fate]

39. So DEMs secretly are want organized crime to control abortions?...

...as opposed to medical professionals?

Not buying it. Enjoy your stay.