I've had it with you Specter slammers.

[Justice Is Comin]

I've had it reading these posts from the Democratic Underground core group of Specter haters.

In case you didn't know it, Specter is not a goddamn Democrat. He's not John Conyers and he's not Senator Leahy. He isn't going to go balls-to-the-wall to indict, convict and sentence Bush or to make it open season on subpoenas like they would.

But he's the ONLY Republican who has done anything meaningful to question the Mao Tse Tung that he works for. And that every other jellyfish Republican asshole wants to cover for.

If it wasn't for Specter, there wouldn't have BEEN any hearings. None! Everything would have been caulked and sanded smooth just like Gonzalez and Bush would have liked. Specter was the only one with enough constitutional cajones to put our outrage on the national and world stage, and question these criminal political hermaphrodites.

All I ever see here is how he's just showboating or staging phony political cover to look as though he's doing his job. What bullshit!!

Every time one of those hearings is held, DEMOCRATS are at that hearing. Our Democrats!! The same ones who we have trust and belief in to turn Bush inside out with investigations and exposures if we regain control of Congress. This gives them a clear shot now at whoever is sitting at that table. It's not Specter's fault if we don't score the fatal blow that causes everyone to gasp and headline every major news show as the lead story.

Specter holds the key to that door. If he don't open it, we don't get in!! How many other Republicans have you seen showing constitutional concerns about this lawbreaking sicko in the White House? About anything? Even phony ones!! None, thats how many!! The rest are a bunch of ass kissing, boot licking Bush supporting co-conspirators.

Because of Specter, the NSA spying unraveling is still getting pressure from every front. It's keeping it in the news. Public groups were given information they are now using in private lawsuits. The damage to Bush done by these hearings is exponential and we are far from knowing the final outcome of the future proceedings yet to come. And one thing is sure. Gonzalez is shook and on pins and needles as to what may still be discovered.

And now here comes Specter again leading the charge after the disclosure of the record law breaking signing statements. Nobody else. Specter!! Once again his enormously powerful judiciary committee, by his authority, is going to pull back the layers of that onion nobody in that administration is going to like. It is not welcomed. You can bet if there is anybody in the Congress that Bush and his syndicate would like to vanish, it's Specter. Anyone else as judiciary chairman would be quietly compliant on the payroll. Without him they would have a problem free power grab Mardi Gras.

Our own representative Jane Harmon has done more to cover up Bush's spying. So next time you want to flog Specter and berate him as just another carbon copy of all the other Republican assholes we write about on this forum, like Frist, or waive that tired old single bullet architect bullshit, you better think about what I wrote here.

Because Specter is the best and only hope we've got in that Republican Congress. And he just may be the one you will need to apologize to if we ever do get that one irrefutable piece of information that brings down that despicable fucker in the White House.

If you don't want to encourage him, email him and tell him to do NOTHING. Because with many of you, he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

I'm sick of it. And I think it's time somebody spoke up for him!!

[bullimiami]

1. specter IS an AMERICAN like the rest of us and he has ENABLED much of

what bush has done.

Parties be damned, this is about criminal behavior.

[sam sarrha]

34. but doesn't he just fall in line after a cursory questioning.. is he just

faking it..?? trying not to appear as openly corrupt as the rest but still is..

[MercutioATC]

50. If so, he deserves the Yogi Bear "smarter than your average Congressman"

award.

Most Republicans (and not a few Democrats) have, in action (if not in words), supported Bush in most of his endeavors because there was a short-term political advantage in doing so. If Specter's "faking it", he's smarter than the average bear...and the average Congressman, Dem or Repub...

[KyuzoGator]

2. Indeed. Specter has had more backbone than most of the Dems.

Give praise where it's due.

[billbuckhead]

4. Spector's just looking for a magic pristine bullet

Arlen's a lifetime scumbag. They'll have to put him into the ground with a corkscrew.

[KyuzoGator]

9. Plenty of Congressmen with a "D" by their name who fit that bill, too.

And when it boils down, Specter is doing something. I find myself screaming at C-SPAN for Dems to just do something, say SOMETHING.

[Canuckistanian]

57. Agreed

The Dems are powerless, indeed, but the din of crickets chirping is intolerable.

I don't exactly trust Arlen, but at least he has moments of clarity.

[hlthe2b]

61. re: "I don't exactly trust Arlen..."

"but at least he has moments of clarity.".....

Ditto, but I'd suggest it is moments of conscience--an increasingly rare commodity on Capitol Hill (and among our media).


The question is whether that conscience will be enough to motivate Arlen to do what needs to be done. He has caved before (often). The magic bullet theory was Arlen's and will forever define him in my mind, unfortunately. But we get nowhere without the motivation of conscience... So at least there remains some integrity within THIS republican...

[BuyingThyme]

3. Specter reached out and claimed this as his turf because he didn't

want other committees to investigate.

Arlen Specter is a Bush shill; he's never been anything else.

[pnwmom]

31. Other committees are still free to investigate. He's not stopping them.

[BuyingThyme]

36. Theoretically yes, but nobody's going to dare to recall

Alberto Gonzales as a witness because the Bushes will just call it a duplicative witch hunt. Won't happen. Specter is closing the doors.

[Sperk]

5. I love your passion, but I'm not swayed, not in the least.

Spector is being held to such in incredibly LOW standard, even by your own account. He HAS subpoena power and refuses to use it...he wouldn't even put the Attorney General under oath.

Yeah he talks the good talk, so what? My Mama always taught me to ignore the talk and watch the walk. If he actually starts walking the walk...I'll praise it, but I haven't seen it yet...and it's getting pretty late.

I'm not asking Spector to be a Democrat...I'm asking him to be an AMERICAN and to speak out when his FELLOW Repugs are NOT.

[BuyingThyme]

6. Put witnesses under oath when it comes to the Constitution?

Allowing the issues to be obfuscated into obscurity?

Now you're just nitpicking.

[MercutioATC]

51. Nope, I agree with sperk on this one...

...but I think that maybe not putting Gonzales under oath was what he had to pay for holding the hearings.

[BuyingThyme]

55. I was being sarcastic.

[Mr_Spock]

10. I agree with you - "ignore the talk and watch the walk"

you said it...

[pnwmom]

32. Do you know that he won't be using his subpoena power?

I hadn't heard that.

[babylonsister]

7. Good argument, but he annoyed me when Feingold went for

censure-by his lonesome, for sure-and Specter pretty much shot him down. We were talking apples and apples. I'd be more agreeable if Specter didn't take that stance. And the bankruptcy ruling? Who was he massaging with that one? Alito? Pissed me off. He's been known to say one thing and speak another, out of the other side of his mouth.

snip//
"He delivered on his promise to help win confirmation of Bush's judicial nominees and also got back into Republicans' good graces by helping enact two items on Bush's agenda to overhaul the legal system: restricting personal bankruptcy and class- action lawsuits."
snip//

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=axhtlal99Jns&refer=us

[Justice Is Comin]

59. Babylonsister

the censure of Bush is still not a settled issue. But again, he gave Feingold the forum to convince people if he could.

Specter won't dance to anybody's drummer, he only plays his own drum. But he doesn't close off other people's opportunity to speak and defend their best case for their position. That's a distinct difference with him.

He also doesn't just say I'm right and case closed. He always gives a lengthy and reasoned explanation as to why he came to his decision he makes. I have never seen him duck or dodge questions in a reporter conference either. He always answers whether the answer is uncomfortable or not.

But most of all consider this. How much do you think all the hearings he held to date, and the obfuscation that was shown in them, have contributed to the 32% approval rating for Bush? I suggest it is enormous.

The cumulative effect of what he has done cannot even be measured, but has to be acknowledged.

[Drum]

8. Hearing all that you say,

and appreciating your right to say it, and how Spector has spoken up to slow down Bush's runaway train...

I still say to Senator Spector: put 'em ALL under oath, and hearings will mean something. The fact that his Committee has let this slide before---that persons testifying are in no legal jeopardy for lying---in such meaningful instances is something I still can't forgive unless it's truly corrected. The past important hearings before powerful Committees have been farces, dangerous ones.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NI4NI]

11. I commend you for your

fair and balanced post. Specter is giving us our turn at the plate and the issue in the public veiw.

[BuyingThyme]

15. To the contrary. The minute the NSA bomb hit, Specter reached out and

defused it.

[Justice Is Comin]

21. I can always count on you to

be single bullet targeted to minimize what Specter has done.

So just exactly what did Specter do to defuse the NSA? Did you notice Democrats were there questioning at all hearings? Did they create earthshaking headlines?

[BuyingThyme]

28. Oh come now. Don't blame me because you keep striking out with Arlen.

He's done nothing but put an end to the headlines.

And Bush is still doing everything he was doing when this all started, while old Arlen says, "Well, we don't know if the administration has done anything illegal."

Remember that bet you wanted to make? You were so wrong, but you're still in denial.

[Mythsaje]

13. Other than him being a typical hypocritcal, lying,

drug warrior Repug, I've got nothing against him.

[DemonFighterLives]

14. When Specter comes clean on the Kennedy Murder

I'll respect him. \
Until then he is only a coverup artist.

[Octafish]

17. What DemonFighterLives said.

A Traitor,
Son of a Traitor,
Grandson of a Traitor.

[DemonFighterLives]

20. Thank you very much!

Good to see ya!
:freak:

[MercutioATC]

52. When Kennedy comes clean on Chappaquiddick....

...you realize where this all goes, don't you? Let's let bygones be bygones. Both parties are dirty.

[Catrina]

58. You compare an accident to an assassination?

I'm seeing a log of this 'both parties are dirty' talk tonight for some reason.

Have you looked at the list of crimes committed by this Republican administration yet? As one of the judges in one of the myriad of cases going on trying to get to the bottom of their crimes said that this particular case involved a 'crime of such magnitude' that he made a decision he normally wouldn't make. We don't know yet what THAT crime is, but I think we're close to finding out.

The Abramoff affairs alone will take years to uncover, involving only Republicans, they extend around the globe, China, Africa, Israel, Britain, Russia, not to mention here. Most political analysts have stated that these crimes alone are 'unprecedented in the history of the country' in their scope and the number of Republicans involved in them.

The conspiracy to lie to go to war in Iraq and Iran involves so many Republicans at the top of the government, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire cabinet has to resign. And that involves several cases, the Pentagon Spy Case, if it continues, could implicate the SOS, VP and top security personel.

The Domestic Spying case which hasn't even begun to unravel, which involves so many Republicans, is just one more crime yet to be investigated. Breaking the law seems to be a sport to this party.

The Torture scandal, still unfolding and for which none of the real perpetrators have been held accountable yet.

Then there's the outing of Valerie Plame, which has only begun to unfold, the evidence pointing all the way to the president and VP so far, not to mention all the other Republicans involved ~

As for convictions, indictments and those under investigation, the list is already long, involving four, maybe five Repbulican Governors, at least one of whom is already serving jail time.

There's still the forged Niger Documents investigation eg, with top government officials involved, some of whom are already under investigation in the other cases mentioned above.

There's Enron, Halliburton and we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the Republican owned voting machine emerging scandals.

There's the murder trial in Florida of Abramoff business associate, Gus Boulis, in which another Republican, already convicted of a separate crime, Adam Kidan, is also implicated.

The Repub. Maj. Leader of the Senate, under investigation for insider trading.
The Repub. Maj. Leader of the House (former now) under indictment in Texas and soon to be under indictment in the Abramoff affairs.
The Repub. Speaker of the House, under investigation for nefarious dealings abroad.

Numerous Repub. Congressmen under investigation in the Abramoff affairs with at least one about to be indicted, along with an aide.

So far, one Repub. Congressman, Duke Cunningham, convicted and serving time for taking bribes. One Defense contractor indicted in connection with that conviction with more on the way.

Then there's the uniquely Repub. scandal of Coingate in Ohio ~ have you followed that one? Tom Noe indicted on 50 counts of corruption so far, with more to come apparently ~

I didn't yet get to the Repub. aides, ie, Rudy, former aide of Tom Delay indicted for corruption, leading to more investigations.

Domestic affairs Repub. Bush nominee, Claude Allen, arrested for petty theft.

Director of procurements, Repub Bush nominee, David Safavian, arrested and on trial for lying to the Feds.

The whole Dept. of the Interior under Bush Repub. appointee, Gale Norton is implicated in the Abramoff affairs, with indictments expected there.

17 prosecutors and several government agencies are trying to sort out the Abramoff connected crimes alone.

And it is predicted by court and investigation watchers of all these hugh cases, that there will be a virtual 'tsunami' of indictments of top Republicans over the coming year.

And don't get me started on the K Street Project and what it meant to the American people in terms of the seditious plot to eliminate checks and balances and on the laws they got passed which have so harmed this democracy, not to mention their goal of one party rule.

This is just from memory, I know there are so many more but I think that should give you an idea that to say that there has ever been this much corruption in, with maybe crimes as high as treason in ONE PARTY is simply ludicrous

[napi21]

16. I agree Justice. It's hard for a long time politician to go against his

Prez. I posted a similar response on another thread. Arlan had to fight very hard to keep the Pubs from throwing him overboard and denying him the Chairmanship of the judiciary Committee. I think he's reall PO'd now. ate him for what he has done in the past, but give him credit for what he's doing NOW!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. I bet you liked Specter's "Single-Bullet" theory, too....

...Specter's been an enabler of the far rightwing for quite some time, beginning with his work on the Warren Commission.

You like him? Fine. You can have him.

[Justice Is Comin]

27. Theory ?

Have you seen documentaries or case examinations other than the Oliver Stone movie to draw your conclusion?

I have.

[originalpckelly]

19. My judgment of Specter:

He was once a Democrat, he switched parties to run for D.A. and prosecute the corrupt Democrats in his city.

I wonder if that is the only reason he is a Republican. I think the turncoat thing has created some bad blood against him in our party, maybe more so than any other non-turncoat Senator.

I thought he was being a Puke hack when he was talking about the whole putting someone under oath thing, but unfortunately our guys were behaving like a bunch of asses. I know, I looked up the laws he was talking about, the punishment really is the same for people who lie under oath and those who don't. This makes me wonder why we even have an oath, but whatever tradition maybe. I don't think he did it to help the hearing, he was trying to help the AG not have the photo of him being sworn in on the news. He was still right about the law, he was just doing it for the wrong reasons.

He is going to be very important in any further investigations, and I am glad he has been so firm with Bush, I mean considering he is a Republican.

My current opinion is as follows:
1. He had cancer
2. This cancer caused him to rethink his legacy
3. He realized what Bush is doing is wrong
4. Decided to do the right thing
5. Probably not going to run again in 2010, so he doesn't have to worry about funding, he is free to do the right thing without being persecuted for it.

He is doing the right thing, and if he hadn't there would be no hearings. Just keep in mind that beggars can't be choosers.

[bluerum]

22. Arlen sez yeah - what Justice said! nt

[renate]

23. He could have chosen to look the other way

I may disagree with him on many things, but I certainly don't disagree with his decision to look into the signing statements.

For that decision, I am very, very grateful. And I admire his willingness to go against his party (which he demonstrated long before Bush's popularity tanked). These are not ordinary times and he seems to have been one of the very few Republicans to have recognized that--again, before it became popular to do so.

[Justice Is Comin]

25. Not only that.

He didn't announce it at an obscure reparte with a reporter. Or give a two second mention of it. He gave a detailed and damning description of the Congress becoming meaningless with this continued claim of power. And he announced at an official Judiciary committe hearing on FBI oversight.

This shows the gravity to everybody at that Whitehouse that more problems are coming. All courtesy of Specter.

It also provides statements on record that Democrats can use from now until June pointing out that Specter, the chairman of the Republican led Judiciary committee, has profound concerns of this report of breaking 750 laws.

[stevedeshazer]

24. I'll apologize to both you and Specter...

...when he actually DOES something instead of talking about it.

We've heard this kind of talk from him before, usually in election years.

By the way, what tangible result came out of that whitewash you call a hearing? Nothing.

If we have to count on guys like Specter, still a Republican he last time I checked, we've got a hell of a long way to go. It's all just a bunch of election-year posturing in my opinion.

Like I said, if he proves me wrong, I'll publicly apologize to both of you.

[pnwmom]

33. Specter's not up for election, is he? So he's not in it for himself.

[stevedeshazer]

40. If the Republicans lose the Senate, he's powerless

He knows this. Specter's not in danger individually, but he sure as hell doesn't want to lose his chairmanship of he Judiciary Committee.

He's working to keep his party in power. This is why he is pandering to the electorate with this threat of hearings. He sees the same polls that we do.

They're in trouble, and he knows it. I would ask, why now? Bush has been doing these so-called "signing statements", a de facto line item veto at best and a nose-thumbing of the law at worst, for five and a half years. Now his party is in the tank and suddenly he's hauling out his old "moderate" stance.

Why didn't he say this YEARS ago? Because the Republicans weren't in real distress until recently.

Why didn't he take this stance this two, three, or four years ago?

It's all about POWER.

Respectfully to all you Specter supporters, I really believe he's full of BS. He's a fair-weather friend who would just as soon stab you in the back, but right now most Americans want blood and he's pretending to oblige.

It's just my opinion, so your mileage may vary. :)

[walldude]

26. Sorry, can't agree with you

He may have asked for, or even demanded hearings but what have hearings accomplished? Is Bush still in office? Is the Gulf Coast still a disaster? Are there still illegal wiretaps? Are people still being held in Guantanamo without charges or lawyers? Are we about to attack and possibly nuke Iran? With very few exceptions our representatives have totally failed us. Over 60% of Americans feel that Bush is a total failure, once the poll numbers got that high every democrat and some Repugs should have been screaming bloody murder.

Maybe you need to check out his voting record before you start singing his praises. Here's a few of his better votes:

Funding for the arts: NO

Funding for family planning to reduce unintended pregnancies: NO

Flag Desecration Amendment: Yes

Privacy: To make it illegal, to tape a phone conversation without the consent of all parties: NO

Congressional Pay Raise: Yes

Minimum wage raise: NO

Funding for education for children with disabilities: NO

EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule: NO

Marrige Amendment: YES

Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill: YES

Hurricane Health Care for Survivors Amendment: NO

AIDS Drug Assistance Program Amendment: NO

Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment: NO (supporting the troops)

Hate Crimes Bill: NO

USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization: Yes

I could go on all day... This guy is no friend to me.

[Justice Is Comin]

35. What do I have to do to

get it through to you people?

Once a hearing is convened, he's only another person on the bench of questioners. He's no different than a Feingold or Kennedy or Schumer. And he doesn't ask softball questions himself either.

But he's the gatekeeper. He's the one who has to approve that there will be a hearing. Without his personal agreement that any issue has gravity enough to take valuable time on a schedule of the only offical committee of lawbreaking oversight, we can holler and bitch all we want about the outrage, but nothing will happen.

If a bank manager opens the vault for bank robbers, and the bank robbers don't have enough ability to carry out the money, is it the bank managers fault the robbery failed?

Without him willing to publicly put on display a potentially devastating several hours of criminal wrongdoing, we don't have a prayer of getting it on the national news. These hearings are not on tape so they can be edited.

Would you rather have hearings in the basement that Republicans snicker at? Or would you rather have a shot in the body where other major clever politicians met their demise?

If we score the knockout punch, it will only be thanks to Specter. If we don't, blame OUR fighters. Not him.

[walldude]

42. You want to get through to me? Chill out...

Your praise for Specter rides on whether or not we "score the knockout punch". We aren't going to score anything unless we take the House and the Senate in November. The amount of scandal and corruption in this administration would have sunk 10 democratic administrations by now. They are untouchable. So Specters little hearings aren't going to amount to crap IMHO, and they sure don't erase years of voting like a neo-con asshole. So you see, you won't get through to me because I don't believe hearings are going to take down this administration.

[txindy]

29. Will he put people under oath this time around?

Because without that, it's a dog-and-pony show in an election year. No better than offering a $100 gas 'rebate' bribe to solicit votes. And I don't give a hoot one way or the other about Arlen, other than he rammed Scalito down our throats - a man who will help kill off any chance of stem cell research that Specter, of all people, knows to be so vital.

If there are no oaths taken this time around, either, then this isn't about getting to the truth for Specter, it's about dominating the enabling M$M coverage while trying to look useful to an increasingly-aware and bitter public.

[Justice Is Comin]

43. Do you realize

there is a statue that is used 18 times more frequently than perjury for convicting liars to federal officials? That's Congress.

It does not require being under oath, is much easier to prove and does not even require proof of intent to deceive.

So Gonzalez faced serious legal jeopardy when he was at that witness table. As much as if he was under oath.



b. Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

Federal law proscribes the submission of false statements or evidence to Congress or
congressional committees. It is a criminal offense to knowingly and willfully:
(1) falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material
fact; (2) make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
representation; or (3) make or use any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.11

With respect to the proceedings before Congress, this prohibition applies to administrative
matters and to “any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any
committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable
rules of the House or Senate.” 12 The statute’s parameters were extended to Congress only in
1996.13

There is no limitation on the definition of what constitutes an “investigation or review”
by Congress. As such, the term could encompass any hearing, markup, deposition,
interrogatory, informal request for information, or speech before Congress or one of its
committees or subcommittees. For example, Article II of the Constitution directs the President
“from time to time to give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and
recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”14

To further this requirement, a House concurrent resolution is agreed to by both chambers
directing both Houses of Congress to assemble in the Hall of the House on the date and time for
the address.15 As a result, even the President’s State of the Union address could be considered an
“investigation or review” conducted pursuant to Congress’s authority.

In addition, legal treatises have further explained the meaning of the term “fraudulent
misrepresentation.” The term “fraudulent misrepresentation” includes “half truths calculated to
deceive; and a half truth may be more misleading than an outright lie. A representation literally
true is actionable if used to create an impression substantially false, as where it is accompanied
by conduct calculated to deceive or where it does not state matters which materially qualify that statement.


1118 U.S.C. § 1001(a). The penalty includes a fine up to $10,0000, imprisonment for not more than five
years, or both.

[txindy]

45. So they've used oaths for many years for no reason.

Uh-huh. Right. No oaths, no true hearings. A staged show. The public will see right through them. I hope they do go ahead with the hearings and don't swear in a single witness. That'll drive Congress' ratings down into the single digits. I'll make certain to point out to anyone and everyone that they didn't swear in a single oil executive, either. Gee, no hot-buttons about oil with the public these days, are there? That'll go over large.

Go for it, Arlen. You carried Junior's water on Scalito. Your performance in those 'hearings' was pitiful. You've earned the public's response to your empty posturing.

[Justice Is Comin]

49. Lol.

Do you think this law has no teeth?

Perjury is a bitch to prove. It requires a willful intent to deceive. And you must prove it. False statement title 1001 does not.

I wouldn't want to be the one that was caught lying to Congress if ten people next to me were under oath and I wasn't. Because I'm going to be the first one convicted.

[incapsulated]

47. Answer me this...

Why did Spector insist that he not be sworn? What possible reason?

From Slate:

Decisions on whether to swear in a witness are generally made before the start of a hearing. If a committee member disagrees with the chair's decision, the member can appeal to the chair. On Monday, the judiciary committee battled it out after Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold questioned Republican Chairman Arlen Specter's decision not to swear in Gonzales. (The attorney general had volunteered to take the oath.) Senate committees have their own methods of settling disputes—the judiciary committee took a vote after Feingold requested it.

Sen. Jeff Sessions voiced an objection to Gonzales taking the oath, saying, "I think it's not necessary that a duly confirmed Cabinet member have to … give an oath when they are, in effect, under oath and subject to prosecution if they don't tell the truth." But the oath a Cabinet member swears when entering office does not include a provision to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"; it states that the official will uphold the tenets of the office and the Constitution. A witness may not be criminally prosecuted for violating this oath of office, which does not have any provisions that govern testimony before Congress. An oath sworn during a previous hearing is also not applicable during future hearings.

If a witness is sworn in and lies to a congressional committee, he may be prosecuted for perjury. If the witness is not sworn, he cannot face perjury charges but could still theoretically be prosecuted for "making false statements."

http://www.slate.com/id/2135698/

[LittleClarkie]

30. Uh huh. Loved his magic bullet theory

I dunno how deep that opposition runs. He has his moments. And I'm glad to see him have hair now. But I don't competely trust him just the same.

[IChing]

37. sorry don't agree unless you put me under oath...LOL

then I still won't agree. The oath factor, if you remember is why you are paying through the nose for believing in their condensing, patronizing bullshit that he throws out....HE HAS TO BE RE_ELECTED and knows it.

[alittlelark]

38. I will support any lawmaker that opposes this ILLEGAL Junta

Specter is the enemy of my enemy.

[incapsulated]

39. I'll tell you why it's a sham

Unless he uses his power to put witnesses under oath, nothing they say can or will ever be used against them in a court of law and Arlen is certainly smart enough to know that.

This is a shadow play. "Look, a Republican is holding hearings! To question the Administration! (even though that is his job) Democrats are allowed to "question" the witness (who isn't under oath and is therefore free to be as vague as he likes and refuse to answer direct questions), and DEMOCRACY IS ALIVE! Who said we don't have open government!?"

And what is the usual end to this smoke and mirrors illusion of congressional oversight? New legislation is passed to make all the actions that Arlen is so concerned with, legal, and stamped with the approval of the Republican majority.

Yay.

The NYT brought the NSA spying to public attention, not Spector.

You are also missing a very important point in all this. Spector is a long time member of the Club, the Senate, and they like to retain at least the appearance of still having some influence or no one will be impressed by them at parties anymore. So he drags out some godawful thing Bush did without their approval, raps him on the knuckles and keeps his mojo.

When John Conyers is the head of the Judaical Committee, you will see what a real congressional hearing looks like.


edit for typos.

[Justice Is Comin]

46. Your argument is

totally without merit. Please see post 43. Maybe you didn't know.

[incapsulated]

48. I've already responded and further

My post has more than a single point. But you knew that. Nice deflection.

[Justice Is Comin]

53. Not meant at all to be derisive.

So many here think there are no legal consequences unless you are under oath. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

As to the NYT breaking the story--of course. Someone charged with their duty of what they're supposed to be doing--investigating, first has to expose the criminality or the coverup. The same as has just happened with the Boston Globe reporting the 750 laws broken.

Specter is not going to be the one that discovers this. What is important, is who steps forward and uses their Congressional authority after hearing it, to do something.

And Arlen Specter is the only Republican that is doing what a Judiciary Committee chairman should do. He's holding hearings.

[incapsulated]

54. I'm sorry but...

As I said, there was no reason for him not to swear him in other than to give him cover, especially after Feingold objected. These men are all lawyers. The Democratic laywers wanted him under oath, the Republicans didn't. That really tells me all I need to know about the legality of the situation. I trust Russ over Spector any day, lol.

I still say this is a game, played to give the appearance of dissent while actually propping up the very people they are supposedly investigating.

We will have to agree to disagree. I don't trust Spector any further than I can throw him.

[MercutioATC]

41. Gotta agree.

Specter is far from being a Dem but he's been better than a lot of our people.

He's been a politician for a long time. He has some major bad votes on his record.

He's also one of the few Republicans who not only have broken with Bush on issues, but are extremely vocal about it.


Yeah, he's a Repub. Yeah, his record ain't great. I think he's one of the Repubs we should send warm fuzzy messages to on occasion, though. He's one of the few in Congress (Dem or Repub) that occasionally deserve a little positive reinforcement.

[KingFlorez]

44. I don't like Specter, but I agree

I think anger is useless, because we know he's a Republican and would never do the investigations and hearings we really need.

[Imagevision]

56. Specter voted to not require Gonzalez to testify under oath!

Why bother testifying to anything, we're talking about the Attorney General who decides he would prefer not to offer answers under oath???? -- fucking duh!!!!!!!

[Justice Is Comin]

60. First of all,

I don't know if you just made an error in stating your words wrong, but Gonzalez said he would have no objections to be placed under oath. Doesn't sound like he's real worried about being under oath to me.

And I'll tell you why. Because he didn't intend to answer any questions that would be clear cut enough or deceiful enough to stand up under the burden of a perjury charge. Which is enormous.

But since you and so many others keep clinging to that same life raft, I would like to ask you something.

You and all those who are outraged that he wasn't under oath, apparently that would have made a world of difference. So let's hypothetically give you the ability to reverse time to the day of his testimony. And now Specter swore Gonzalez in. So now he's under that all important oath you require.

Now you tell me what he said that the highest paid lawyer in Washington would be able to prosecute him for, for perjury. And I'm being ridiculous here in the standard I'm setting for you.

I'm not even talking about convicting him. I'm just talking about enough to even bring the case.

[PATRICK]

62. Without supporting him at all

If there is going to be a move to deal with Bush it will likely center on Specter. I seriously doubt that can and will happen but by all means support the needed actions if not the man. His entire long history is one of taking orders from the higher powers and one of policy moderation acceptable to his state. He could have been a DINO but I suppose his voting record is considerably worse than Leiberman's.

There is not an ounce of real integrity in their whole regime. Still, one must try to restore sanity.

[mtnsnake]

63. K&R!

Great rant. Couldn't agree more.