Except it was the CIA that initially requested an investigation and made the accusations of impropriety in the Plame case. And Bush was the one to say that anyone involved would be fired and made the moral stand (until he discovered who was responsible). And, of course, people were actually convicted of a crime. So it doesn't really fit the idea of being a Democrat-manufactured non-scandal. I know you're not a fan of details like that, but they still are true.
I'd much rather have a position where I report to the people of a state with election every six years than a position where I could be appointed today and fired tomorrow at the whim of one person. The rest, as I said, is my opinion. At least one person agreed -- I just discovered I got rep points for the post that offended you.
Minor correction... I believe the offer was to have him be an unpaid board member in addition to remaining as a Representative.
I probably wouldn't participate on an email list like I do on boards. Because you are trying to say that this situation "smacks of" Watergate. That kind of talk is delusional. Impeachment over this is not a possible outcome, it is a laughable notion worthy of nothing more than rolled eyes. I expect a rational discussion that is based in fact. In this case, the fact is that nothing criminal happened except in the minds of the delusional.
There are quite a few people calling for a special prosecutor already. That's no delusional aspect except for those who refuse to admit there could be consequences. Here are two of those "delusional" voices, and, respect them or not, they have a national platform from which they speak: PENN AG TOM CORBETT SHOULD EMPANEL GRAND JURY IN SESTAK AFFAIR By DICK MORRIS AND JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO Published on DickMorris.com on May 27, 2010 With a Democratic Attorney General in Washington, a Democratic president, and both houses of Congress solidly in Democratic control, it is obviously futile to hope that the possible bribery of Joe Sestak to induce him to withdraw from the Senate race against Arlen Specter will be fully investigated. But, as the facts of this scandal grudgingly emerge from the White House and from Congressman Sestak, there is an alternative way to pursue justice. The Pennsylvania Attorney General, Tom Corbett -- who is the Republican nominee for Governor this year -- has ample jurisdiction to convene a grand jury to get to the bottom of the scandal and answer the key questions: 1. Who offered a job to Sestak? 2. What job was proffered? 3. And did the president know of the offer? Corbett's jurisdiction stems from the concept of universal jurisdiction, now accepted virtually everywhere. The concept is simple. If someone on the New Jersey side of the Hudson River fires a pistol across the Hudson and the bullet from the pistol hits someone on the NY side, where did the crime take place? For about 600 years, the answer would have been in NY, where the harm was caused. Under the Reagan administration, and in response to urgings from the Meese Justice Department, the courts began to accept the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. This principle gives jurisdiction to law enforcement in the place wherever any act occurred that may have resulted in a crime. Thus, under our scenario above, the shooter could be prosecuted in NJ or NY. Thus, if Cong. Sestak was in one of his homes, in PA or VA, when he received a telephone call offering him a job if he withdrew from the PA Senate primary against Sen. Arlen Specter, law enforcement authorities in PA and VA -- both of which have Republican state Attorneys General -- can subpoena Cong. Sestak to testify before a state grand jury and compel him to answer the who, what, when, and where that everyone has a right to know. The people of the United States and, particularly the people of Pennsylvania, want these questions to be answered honestly. They will not settle for a Democratic stonewall that refuses to let the truth emerge. Under our federal system, we need not tolerate giving one party the power to be the prosecutor, judge, defendant, defense attorney, and jury. We can open the process to checks and balances. Corbett should make it possible for the truth to emerge by convening a grand jury and summoning Sestak, Emanuel, and anyone else who may have been involved to answer questions under oath.
Like I said, only the delusional. The one thing that they left out of the "analysis" above is the fact that the statute in question applies to "official acts" of sitting Representatives and Senators. Choosing to run for Senate or not run for Senate is not an "official act" and therefore this situation does not rise even to the level of misdemeanor, much less high crime.
I think I'm going to trust the judge over you on the points of law in this. Regardless, there will be no sweeping this one under a rug. The game is afoot.
I looked into this thread to see why anyone was posting in anything started by basso, the troll, and ran across this. Thumbs, I had cataract surgery about 3 1/2 years ago here in Austin and the results were fantastic. One eye is 20-20 (although I can read better than 20-20 with it looking at an eye chart) and the other is 20-25. Between the two I'm seeing 20-20. As someone who had terrible vision most of their life (20-400), it been like a miracle. My surgeon was Dr. R. Todd Smith, M.D., of the Eye Institute of Austin. http://www.eyeinstitute.com/index.php He's pretty young and up on the very latest techniques. While you may not want to drive to Austin to have your eyes done, you should at least consider it, or perhaps find out who this fellow thinks is the best in SA. Good luck and DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
Thanks, I'll ask. My endocrinologist recommended Steven J. Fisher, M.D. of the San Antonio Medical Center Opthalmology Associates. I appreciate the information. I'm not fond of hospitals but I have no fear of surgery -- with one exception. The thought of a red hot laser beam on my eyeballs gives me the willies like never before. On the other hand, I would like to read again without having to giganticize letters on my computer screen or enjoy books without using an audio reader. Also, it will be nice when driving is no longer an adventure. Again, thanks for the concern.
I can see your command of repartee is equal to the imagination and fertility of your language. Based on your remarks, it's understandable that you are limited to words of four or fewer letters.
Here is the judge you are trusting, he is nothing but a Fox "News" analyst, therefore too biased to be taken seriously, as are most Fox personalities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano I stand by my reading of the law itself, which requires an "official act," which is not present in this case.
As I said, we will see how this all shakes out. One of us will be forced to recant our opinion/position before the November elections. BTW, I do not accept wikipedia as a source. Anybody can put anything into it and that "information" suddenly becomes "fact." What is a fact is that Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. While on the bench from 1987-95, he tried more than 150 jury trials, and sat in all parts of the Superior Court — Criminal, Civil, Equity and Family. For 11 years he served as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence. He returned to private law practice in 1995 and is the author of Constitutional Chaos, What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws.
