but your quote was that they were advising the President as criminals. Libby resigned before he was convicted, and I don't believe he has been advising the President since then. If you can find credible evidence that he was, I'd be interested to see it. As far as Gonzalez resigning, I don't recall any criminal charges or prosecution at all. Remember, one of the great things about our Country is innocent until proven guilty.

I suppose that would be in my best interest, I would hate to say something I shouldnt, just to prove my point

I heard that a Presidential candidate keeps close council with a racist. How can this be?

I also notice you ignored my points. If I was as childish as you, I guess I would give myself a score.

Geez Neo I guess you are free to decide who is a crimal or not. Even when the Surprems Court disagrees with you. Amazing your unbias forsight.

“I'll be honest with you, I did not become aware of them until I started running for president. And at that point, yes, I had conversations with him, which I shared with him my deep concerns,” Obama said. “The caricature that's been presented of him is not an accurate depiction of who he is as a pastor.”

do you disbelieve him because i support him?

I disbelieve him because of all of his "mistake comments" He is just not ready to be a president, he needs more grooming for the position

Ron, don't you know that's the norm?
You and I are ignorant because we're young and we support Obama.

And what made Fred "Law & Order" Thompson groomed for the position?

why aren't you an "intelligence" officer anymore?

actually I hope to be again soon, I should find out within a couple of weeks. or do you want to know why I left. My husband was sleeping with my best friend and I was 8 months pregnant, I knew that with a newborn and 2 other kids, I would be able to give the air force all it deserved or my family. Now I am in a position to back.

If you do go back Kori, God bless. I do not degrade your service, only your politics.

good luck! (sincerely)

Me too!

Now I'm sorry I opened it.

Neo, the US attorney issue is definitely not illegal. The US Attys serve at the pleasure of the President. While it mayu distatseful, political and sacrifice the atty's independence, this isn't that different from the democrats refusing to confirm judicial nominees. The Sup Ct has ruled that with the right to hire comes the right to fire.

At this point, there are only allegations regarding political influence on the governor's prosecution, so perhaps stating this as a fait accompli is hyperbole.

Warrentless wiretapping may be unconstitutional, but to make it sound like it is a criminal act is again hyperbole. Reasonable people disagree on this Constitutional gray area.

And to cite Scooter Libby for his perjury charge is ironic, since you are then calling President Clinton a criminal as well, aren't you.

the same cannot be said about the obama arguments made here and on the rest of the conservative blogs?

yes.

Yes they can. The difference is that you are not considering it, you simply dismiss it.

And no, I don't believe Obama, not because you support him, but because it is simply not credible that for over 20 years, these views did not present themselves.

And regarding this caricature, I am sure Hitler's friends would have said history's portrayal of him isn't entirely accurate.

After all, Hitler liked animals.

Great, so we have improved. Instead of the President himself being a criminal, only his advisors are.

Let's rejoice.

Are you serious? Libby was CONVICTED! They were never even able to bring criminal charges against Clinton, much less get a conviction. The closest they came was bringing political charges against him in the impeachment hearings and those were easily defeated.

Nothing gets yoss so riled as to even suggest anything less than deity for all things clinton.

Are you kidding? You honestly believe he did not commit perjury? Hey, OJ was found not guilty too, but I think we all know what really happened.

Yes. Perjury requires a false statement under oath about a material matter. Even if you believe that he made false statements in his deposition in the Jones case, whether he had a relationship with Lewinsky was not at all material to the Jones case, so any perjury charges would have failed on that issue alone. In his Grand Jury testimony, he acknowledged his relationship with Lewinsky.

Prosecutors never brought charges because they had a sure loser of a case.

Uhh, Yoss I think there's a little more to it than that. Prosecutors also contended with the serious legal and constitutional issues (let alone the political ones) of bringing criminal charges against a sitting president.

The fact that he had to pay a $90,000 fine (and lost his Ark. bar license, FWIW) for civil contempt is not meaningless. I think it was stupid and wrong to impeach him, but that doesn't mean he didn't commit perjury. Your parsing of the materiality standard may be accurate, but then again it may not.

More to the point, you sound like Al Gore - "no controlling legal authority" - you may be technically accurate on the law, but in terms of whose act was worse, I don't see a lot of difference between Clinton and Libby - both were caught up in politically motivated, meritless investigations.

wait, are we still talking about TICG??!?!?

I'm confuzzled.