Neither party cares about the pages.
That is not point.
The GOP leadership failed to lead once again and now they will have to deal with this issue.
Hastert will not survive as the speaker past Christmas.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.
What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.
In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.
Read more.
Drudge is breaking a story that this info was presented to the FBI in June. US News also has a story about the alleged predator website that was set up to “break the story”. Wanna bet is wasn’t set up by somone who had the best interest of the pages in mind?
Since no level of proof will convince a zealot with Bush derangment syndrome what’s the point in reading right?
Like I said, no evidence.
Republicans knew.
Republicans leaked.
Covering your ears and chanting I’m a liberal does you no good on a public forum son.
You statements don’t even make sense for a wingbat.
How many more republicans have to come foward saying they knew of Foley and reported it to leadership—till it starts to make sense?
as you’ll remember I was responding to:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time.
Which there is no evidence of (the opposite)
Your just making yourslef look like a bigger fool. You are either naive or dishonest take your pick.
Read more son.
Please back your s–t up or shut up.
Links to democrats KNEW.[/quote]
Already did missy. Drudge and US News and World Report. Your too much of an idiot to read them. Both are public sources. Find your own links. Drudge still had the story up this morning. Barone discussed the connection. You fancy yourself a pundit…you should know who they are.
Just cover your ears and keep whisting a tune. It gives you self satisfaction and me something to mock.
That’s the second and last time I’ll tell you where to look moonbat. Back to Daily Kos now run along.
Hedo, anything more than allegations?
I think there is this little commission which will be looking into things to get some actual facts out in the open for everyone to look at.
Or, are all allegations against democrats true while allegations against republicans require proof? I think I’ve had that conversation already recently…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hedo, anything more than allegations?
I think there is this little commission which will be looking into things to get some actual facts out in the open for everyone to look at.
Or, are all allegations against democrats true while allegations against republicans require proof? I think I’ve had that conversation already recently…[/quote]
Well you have a degree of common sense that balances your bias and realize that the investigation has not been completed Vroom. 100 is a fucking tool and I like fucking with him because he’s a hack.
Yes the US News story traced the website that broke the story to a Soros funded group called CREW. The Deocratic staffers admitted they had the material for quite sometime.
US News and World Report 0ct.06:
"What about the tantalizing question of how the IMs came to be made public? Apparently, a George Soros-funded, Democratic-staffed group called CREW had them earlier this year.
CREW members say they turned copies over to the FBI in July. But they didn’t turn them over to responsible authorities in the House (the page board, for example, or any one member of it), as they could have. From what I have read, Foley IMs, or at least the ones we have seen, probably wouldn’t justify a prosecution under federal criminal law; that requires some act rather than just words.
But the House holds its members to higher standards than the criminal law. Democrats or their sympathizers can withhold information politically damaging to Republicans until a time when disclosure seems likely to do the most damage. It’s an adversary system. But is it ethical to withhold information when its earlier disclosure might serve to protect young people from harassment? I should think not. That may not be a question for the ethics committee, if the withholders were not House members or staffers, but it should be a question for the press.
Posted at 05:25 PM by Michael Barone
[quote]hedo wrote:
Yes the US News story traced the website that broke the story to a Soros funded group called CREW. The Deocratic staffers admitted they had the material for quite sometime.
[/quote]
Okay, I think you have to be careful here, because I think the report is purposely inaccurate.
If I am not mistaken, Soros has donated money to this group, which is about ethics in washington, but as far as I’ve heard, the group is not something Soros has any type of involvement in.
Also, I’d suspect that there are democratic staffers in most groups that are public interest groups, such as an ethics group.
I think we are getting a mischaracterization of the group and a mischaracterization of the funding for political purposes.
However, I am open to finding out more information any true democratic (party) involvement or any true Soros involvement other than being one of the things that he has donated money towards.
I mean, I’m sure there are republicans in the Red Cross, and I donated money to them after Katrina, but I don’t think that makes the Red Cross republican due to some of it’s staff or liberal due to my donation.
[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.
What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.
In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.
Read more.
Drudge is breaking a story that this info was presented to the FBI in June. US News also has a story about the alleged predator website that was set up to “break the story”. Wanna bet is wasn’t set up by somone who had the best interest of the pages in mind?
Since no level of proof will convince a zealot with Bush derangment syndrome what’s the point in reading right?
Like I said, no evidence.
Republicans knew.
Republicans leaked.
Covering your ears and chanting I’m a liberal does you no good on a public forum son.
You statements don’t even make sense for a wingbat.
How many more republicans have to come foward saying they knew of Foley and reported it to leadership—till it starts to make sense?
as you’ll remember I was responding to:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time.
Which there is no evidence of (the opposite)
Your just making yourslef look like a bigger fool. You are either naive or dishonest take your pick.
Read more son.
Please back your s–t up or shut up.
Links to democrats KNEW.
Already did missy. Drudge and US News and World Report. Your too much of an idiot to read them. Both are public sources. Find your own links. Drudge still had the story up this morning. Barone discussed the connection. You fancy yourself a pundit…you should know who they are.
Just cover your ears and keep whisting a tune. It gives you self satisfaction and me something to mock.
That’s the second and last time I’ll tell you where to look moonbat. Back to Daily Kos now run along.
[/quote]
Like I said no evidence.
Your articles have none, that’s why I asked you for links that I know you don’t have.
Drudge offers none.
And CREW does not equal democrats, not to mention they turned over the emails to the FBI the same day.
[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Yes the US News story traced the website that broke the story to a Soros funded group called CREW. The Deocratic staffers admitted they had the material for quite sometime.
Okay, I think you have to be careful here, because I think the report is purposely inaccurate.
If I am not mistaken, Soros has donated money to this group, which is about ethics in washington, but as far as I’ve heard, the group is not something Soros has any type of involvement in.
Also, I’d suspect that there are democratic staffers in most groups that are public interest groups, such as an ethics group.
I think we are getting a mischaracterization of the group and a mischaracterization of the funding for political purposes.
However, I am open to finding out more information any true democratic (party) involvement or any true Soros involvement other than being one of the things that he has donated money towards.
I mean, I’m sure there are republicans in the Red Cross, and I donated money to them after Katrina, but I don’t think that makes the Red Cross republican due to some of it’s staff or liberal due to my donation.
[/quote]
Even a little research reveals that CREW is a watchdog group, in name only funded by Soros, to go after the GOP. Common knowledge and easily verifiable. Republicans do the same the same thing, we just don’t claim that the groups are independent. Now according to CREW the FBI is wrong also. It’s all a vast rightwing conspiracy. God I am so glad we have Diebold in our pickets too.
Apparently the FBI wouldn’t do what they were told. Where’s Louis Freeh when you need him huh?
From the Washington Post:
Watchdog Group Disputes FBI’s Claims on E-Mails
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 6, 2006; Page A04
The watchdog group that first provided the FBI with suspicious e-mails from then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said yesterday that FBI and Justice Department officials are attempting to cover up their inaction in the case by making false claims about the group.
Law enforcement officials said the allegations by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) are without merit, and they stood by allegations that the group had refused to provide some information to the FBI.
The dispute is the latest controversy this week for CREW, a liberal-leaning group that has come under attack from House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and other Republicans because it has received money from a foundation funded by liberal financier George Soros.
CREW held a news conference Monday to announce that in July it had provided the FBI suspicious e-mails between Foley and a former House page. The group criticized the bureau for not taking more aggressive action and asked Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine to investigate the FBI’s handling of the case.
Law enforcement officials said then that the e-mails did not provide enough evidence of a possible crime to warrant a full investigation. In the e-mails, Foley praises the physical attributes of one page and asks another teenager for his picture.
In subsequent days, unidentified Justice and FBI officials told reporters that the e-mails provided by CREW were heavily redacted and that the group refused to provide unedited versions to the FBI. One law enforcement official – speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation – also told The Washington Post the FBI believed that CREW may have received the e-mails as early as April and that the group refused to tell the FBI how they were obtained.
Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said copies of the original e-mails she sent to an FBI agent show those assertions to be wrong. Sloan said the agent called to confirm receipt of the e-mails and to ask if one of the parties was Foley.
Sloan said the group sent unedited e-mails to the FBI because “we wanted them to commence an investigation. We’re sort of outraged that they’re saying anything differently.” The group has asked Fine’s office to look into the FBI’s assertions.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse declined to comment on that issue but defended the FBI’s handling of the original e-mails: “The e-mails, while inappropriate, did not contain a criminal predicate to allow the FBI to move forward in an investigation.”
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.
What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.
In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.
Read more.
Drudge is breaking a story that this info was presented to the FBI in June. US News also has a story about the alleged predator website that was set up to “break the story”. Wanna bet is wasn’t set up by somone who had the best interest of the pages in mind?
Since no level of proof will convince a zealot with Bush derangment syndrome what’s the point in reading right?
Like I said, no evidence.
Republicans knew.
Republicans leaked.
Covering your ears and chanting I’m a liberal does you no good on a public forum son.
You statements don’t even make sense for a wingbat.
How many more republicans have to come foward saying they knew of Foley and reported it to leadership—till it starts to make sense?
as you’ll remember I was responding to:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time.
Which there is no evidence of (the opposite)
Your just making yourslef look like a bigger fool. You are either naive or dishonest take your pick.
Read more son.
Please back your s–t up or shut up.
Links to democrats KNEW.
Already did missy. Drudge and US News and World Report. Your too much of an idiot to read them. Both are public sources. Find your own links. Drudge still had the story up this morning. Barone discussed the connection. You fancy yourself a pundit…you should know who they are.
Just cover your ears and keep whisting a tune. It gives you self satisfaction and me something to mock.
That’s the second and last time I’ll tell you where to look moonbat. Back to Daily Kos now run along.
Like I said no evidence.
Your articles have none, that’s why I asked you for links that I know you don’t have.
Drudge offers none.
And CREW does not equal democrats, not to mention they turned over the emails to the FBI the same day.
[/quote]
That’s it…what a pussy.
Two articles, two national publications. No information huh. That’s it…hahaha.
You know son you can’t fix stupid and you are one dumbass.
Read and learn. I don’t think anyone falls for your shit anymore.
[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.
What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.
In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.
Read more.
Drudge is breaking a story that this info was presented to the FBI in June. US News also has a story about the alleged predator website that was set up to “break the story”. Wanna bet is wasn’t set up by somone who had the best interest of the pages in mind?
Since no level of proof will convince a zealot with Bush derangment syndrome what’s the point in reading right?
Like I said, no evidence.
Republicans knew.
Republicans leaked.
Covering your ears and chanting I’m a liberal does you no good on a public forum son.
You statements don’t even make sense for a wingbat.
How many more republicans have to come foward saying they knew of Foley and reported it to leadership—till it starts to make sense?
as you’ll remember I was responding to:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time.
Which there is no evidence of (the opposite)
Your just making yourslef look like a bigger fool. You are either naive or dishonest take your pick.
Read more son.
Please back your s–t up or shut up.
Links to democrats KNEW.
Already did missy. Drudge and US News and World Report. Your too much of an idiot to read them. Both are public sources. Find your own links. Drudge still had the story up this morning. Barone discussed the connection. You fancy yourself a pundit…you should know who they are.
Just cover your ears and keep whisting a tune. It gives you self satisfaction and me something to mock.
That’s the second and last time I’ll tell you where to look moonbat. Back to Daily Kos now run along.
Like I said no evidence.
Your articles have none, that’s why I asked you for links that I know you don’t have.
Drudge offers none.
And CREW does not equal democrats, not to mention they turned over the emails to the FBI the same day.
That’s it…what a pussy.
Two articles, two national publications. No information huh. That’s it…hahaha.
You know son you can’t fix stupid and you are one dumbass.
Read and learn. I don’t think anyone falls for your shit anymore.
[/quote]
I’m guessing this an admission of some sort that you were just making s–t up.
(seeing as how you still haven’t posted anything, repeat anything to back up your claim)
I’m noticing a history of not being able to admit to your inaccuracies/making s–t up.
I seem to remember your lie about a certain “recent” poll.
Post your evidence or shut up. Not hard.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Even a little research reveals that CREW is a watchdog group, in name only funded by Soros, to go after the GOP. Common knowledge and easily verifiable. Republicans do the same the same thing, we just don’t claim that the groups are independent. Now according to CREW the FBI is wrong also. It’s all a vast rightwing conspiracy. God I am so glad we have Diebold in our pickets too.[/quote]
Hedo, again, do you have any proof that CREW has any type of relationship with Soros above and beyond the fact that he donated some money?
I mean, if what we are seeing is word games on the notion of “providing funding” then you are looking at spin. So, please, if you have something more definitive than the wording used in the media, then let’s see it.
However, while you are so quick to assume CREW is completely at fault, you are quick to assume the FBI could never have been told to bury the issue when they made some initial calls.
I want to see more information… it’s very early in the game, with respect to CREW, with respect to the FBI actions, and so on. If there was a cover up, then it’s not hard to imagine undue use of influence in various ways.
If there wasn’t a coverup, then it surely could have been summarily dismissed by the FBI and those in office for the reasons stated.
Maybe you should be suspicious of both sides, since you seem to claim that both sides use the same tactics. To me, it looks like you are willing to accept word games from one side, in order to pick a stance, yet at the same time claim malfeasance from both parties.
One of these things is not consistent.
I don’t know what exactly transpired, but I do hope that upcoming testimony under oath will help to uncover some of the truth. It’s an important issue and I dislike the attempts to whitewash this with partisan paint.
It’s also important to distinguish whether a group of liberal leaning people knew about this information or whether democrats in office knew about this information. It seems like some people are assuming that every liberal alive knew if CREW knew.
Let’s strive for some accuracy in details and not accept a whitewash, from anyone, including large media outlets. Just because it is printed doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to be carefully scrutinized to get underneath the spin attached to it!
[quote]hedo wrote:
…
Read and learn. I don’t think anyone falls for your shit anymore.
[/quote]
You got that right. His posts have become a total joke.
Thankfully there are still posters that can present the left’s viewpoint and are still connected to reality.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.
What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.
In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.
Read more.
Drudge is breaking a story that this info was presented to the FBI in June. US News also has a story about the alleged predator website that was set up to “break the story”. Wanna bet is wasn’t set up by somone who had the best interest of the pages in mind?
Since no level of proof will convince a zealot with Bush derangment syndrome what’s the point in reading right?
Like I said, no evidence.
Republicans knew.
Republicans leaked.
Covering your ears and chanting I’m a liberal does you no good on a public forum son.
You statements don’t even make sense for a wingbat.
How many more republicans have to come foward saying they knew of Foley and reported it to leadership—till it starts to make sense?
as you’ll remember I was responding to:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time.
Which there is no evidence of (the opposite)
Your just making yourslef look like a bigger fool. You are either naive or dishonest take your pick.
Read more son.
Please back your s–t up or shut up.
Links to democrats KNEW.
Already did missy. Drudge and US News and World Report. Your too much of an idiot to read them. Both are public sources. Find your own links. Drudge still had the story up this morning. Barone discussed the connection. You fancy yourself a pundit…you should know who they are.
Just cover your ears and keep whisting a tune. It gives you self satisfaction and me something to mock.
That’s the second and last time I’ll tell you where to look moonbat. Back to Daily Kos now run along.
Like I said no evidence.
Your articles have none, that’s why I asked you for links that I know you don’t have.
Drudge offers none.
And CREW does not equal democrats, not to mention they turned over the emails to the FBI the same day.
That’s it…what a pussy.
Two articles, two national publications. No information huh. That’s it…hahaha.
You know son you can’t fix stupid and you are one dumbass.
Read and learn. I don’t think anyone falls for your shit anymore.
I’m guessing this an admission of some sort that you were just making s–t up.
(seeing as how you still haven’t posted anything, repeat anything to back up your claim)
I’m noticing a history of not being able to admit to your inaccuracies/making s–t up.
I seem to remember your lie about a certain “recent” poll.
Post your evidence or shut up. Not hard.[/quote]
I’m on earth. What planet are you on missy.
The only one in this conversation that is a devout liar is you.
[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Even a little research reveals that CREW is a watchdog group, in name only funded by Soros, to go after the GOP. Common knowledge and easily verifiable. Republicans do the same the same thing, we just don’t claim that the groups are independent. Now according to CREW the FBI is wrong also. It’s all a vast rightwing conspiracy. God I am so glad we have Diebold in our pickets too.
Hedo, again, do you have any proof that CREW has any type of relationship with Soros above and beyond the fact that he donated some money?
I mean, if what we are seeing is word games on the notion of “providing funding” then you are looking at spin. So, please, if you have something more definitive than the wording used in the media, then let’s see it.
However, while you are so quick to assume CREW is completely at fault, you are quick to assume the FBI could never have been told to bury the issue when they made some initial calls.
I want to see more information… it’s very early in the game, with respect to CREW, with respect to the FBI actions, and so on. If there was a cover up, then it’s not hard to imagine undue use of influence in various ways.
If there wasn’t a coverup, then it surely could have been summarily dismissed by the FBI and those in office for the reasons stated.
Maybe you should be suspicious of both sides, since you seem to claim that both sides use the same tactics. To me, it looks like you are willing to accept word games from one side, in order to pick a stance, yet at the same time claim malfeasance from both parties.
One of these things is not consistent.
I don’t know what exactly transpired, but I do hope that upcoming testimony under oath will help to uncover some of the truth. It’s an important issue and I dislike the attempts to whitewash this with partisan paint.
It’s also important to distinguish whether a group of liberal leaning people knew about this information or whether democrats in office knew about this information. It seems like some people are assuming that every liberal alive knew if CREW knew.
Let’s strive for some accuracy in details and not accept a whitewash, from anyone, including large media outlets. Just because it is printed doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to be carefully scrutinized to get underneath the spin attached to it![/quote]
Well Vroom very good quations. I don’t know why the investigative media hasn’t asked them?
It’s not my responsibility or interest to do research beyond sourcing off the internet. CREW is well known to be funded by Soros and I am sure public records could be found to support the idea. Simply looking at their literature reveals they are partisan to the extreme. Hardly a “watchdog” group.
As to the FBI participating in a coverup to further one politcal party over another. Not likely. People can choose to believe the FBI participated in some vast conspiracy but I doubt it. Much more likely is they decided not to pursue a case that had no legal merit. This infuriated CREW and Soros who then tried another way to get the story out. The St. Petersburg Times decided not to run the story because the FBI wasn’t going after the case. Strike Two for crew. The third option was the website and then trying to get the story into the blogosphere.
I’ve seen many on this board go into full blown Bush Derangement Syndrome based on miniscule amounts of evidence. Sometimes as little as a mispoken word or two by a public official. When presented with public mainstream sources and FBI officials who are named. Suddenly that isn’t even enough.
At this point it’s kind of silly to continue to argue facts against opinion, since the opinions of some will never change regardless of facts.
[quote]hedo wrote:
vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Even a little research reveals that CREW is a watchdog group, in name only funded by Soros, to go after the GOP. Common knowledge and easily verifiable. Republicans do the same the same thing, we just don’t claim that the groups are independent. Now according to CREW the FBI is wrong also. It’s all a vast rightwing conspiracy. God I am so glad we have Diebold in our pickets too.
Hedo, again, do you have any proof that CREW has any type of relationship with Soros above and beyond the fact that he donated some money?
I mean, if what we are seeing is word games on the notion of “providing funding” then you are looking at spin. So, please, if you have something more definitive than the wording used in the media, then let’s see it.
However, while you are so quick to assume CREW is completely at fault, you are quick to assume the FBI could never have been told to bury the issue when they made some initial calls.
I want to see more information… it’s very early in the game, with respect to CREW, with respect to the FBI actions, and so on. If there was a cover up, then it’s not hard to imagine undue use of influence in various ways.
If there wasn’t a coverup, then it surely could have been summarily dismissed by the FBI and those in office for the reasons stated.
Maybe you should be suspicious of both sides, since you seem to claim that both sides use the same tactics. To me, it looks like you are willing to accept word games from one side, in order to pick a stance, yet at the same time claim malfeasance from both parties.
One of these things is not consistent.
I don’t know what exactly transpired, but I do hope that upcoming testimony under oath will help to uncover some of the truth. It’s an important issue and I dislike the attempts to whitewash this with partisan paint.
It’s also important to distinguish whether a group of liberal leaning people knew about this information or whether democrats in office knew about this information. It seems like some people are assuming that every liberal alive knew if CREW knew.
Let’s strive for some accuracy in details and not accept a whitewash, from anyone, including large media outlets. Just because it is printed doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to be carefully scrutinized to get underneath the spin attached to it!
Well Vroom very good quations. I don’t know why the investigative media hasn’t asked them?
It’s not my responsibility or interest to do research beyond sourcing off the internet. CREW is well known to be funded by Soros and I am sure public records could be found to support the idea. Simply looking at their literature reveals they are partisan to the extreme. Hardly a “watchdog” group.
As to the FBI participating in a coverup to further one politcal party over another. Not likely. People can choose to believe the FBI participated in some vast conspiracy but I doubt it. Much more likely is they decided not to pursue a case that had no legal merit. This infuriated CREW and Soros who then tried another way to get the story out. The St. Petersburg Times decided not to run the story because the FBI wasn’t going after the case. Strike Two for crew. The third option was the website and then trying to get the story into the blogosphere.
I’ve seen many on this board go into full blown Bush Derangement Syndrome based on miniscule amounts of evidence. Sometimes as little as a mispoken word or two by a public official. When presented with public mainstream sources and FBI officials who are named. Suddenly that isn’t even enough.
At this point it’s kind of silly to continue to argue facts against opinion, since the opinions of some will never change regardless of facts.
[/quote]
You still have no facts, you made this up like “recent polls”(which even BB said “it is the most recent”), look at crew’s website you’ll see they are non-partisan, the fact that they immediately turned in the emails to the fbi should say something as well…
When you’re called on s–t just fess up.
Again there is no evidence that democrats/democratic party had anything to do with this, just evidence to the contrary as EVERYBODY in here knows except for ZAP who is also factually challenged.
If you were right you’d be posting links…Everyone can see that you’re not, by the way I’d love to see some of my lies—it’ll never happen though.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Even a little research reveals that CREW is a watchdog group, in name only funded by Soros, to go after the GOP. Common knowledge and easily verifiable. Republicans do the same the same thing, we just don’t claim that the groups are independent. Now according to CREW the FBI is wrong also. It’s all a vast rightwing conspiracy. God I am so glad we have Diebold in our pickets too.
Hedo, again, do you have any proof that CREW has any type of relationship with Soros above and beyond the fact that he donated some money?
I mean, if what we are seeing is word games on the notion of “providing funding” then you are looking at spin. So, please, if you have something more definitive than the wording used in the media, then let’s see it.
However, while you are so quick to assume CREW is completely at fault, you are quick to assume the FBI could never have been told to bury the issue when they made some initial calls.
I want to see more information… it’s very early in the game, with respect to CREW, with respect to the FBI actions, and so on. If there was a cover up, then it’s not hard to imagine undue use of influence in various ways.
If there wasn’t a coverup, then it surely could have been summarily dismissed by the FBI and those in office for the reasons stated.
Maybe you should be suspicious of both sides, since you seem to claim that both sides use the same tactics. To me, it looks like you are willing to accept word games from one side, in order to pick a stance, yet at the same time claim malfeasance from both parties.
One of these things is not consistent.
I don’t know what exactly transpired, but I do hope that upcoming testimony under oath will help to uncover some of the truth. It’s an important issue and I dislike the attempts to whitewash this with partisan paint.
It’s also important to distinguish whether a group of liberal leaning people knew about this information or whether democrats in office knew about this information. It seems like some people are assuming that every liberal alive knew if CREW knew.
Let’s strive for some accuracy in details and not accept a whitewash, from anyone, including large media outlets. Just because it is printed doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to be carefully scrutinized to get underneath the spin attached to it!
Well Vroom very good quations. I don’t know why the investigative media hasn’t asked them?
It’s not my responsibility or interest to do research beyond sourcing off the internet. CREW is well known to be funded by Soros and I am sure public records could be found to support the idea. Simply looking at their literature reveals they are partisan to the extreme. Hardly a “watchdog” group.
As to the FBI participating in a coverup to further one politcal party over another. Not likely. People can choose to believe the FBI participated in some vast conspiracy but I doubt it. Much more likely is they decided not to pursue a case that had no legal merit. This infuriated CREW and Soros who then tried another way to get the story out. The St. Petersburg Times decided not to run the story because the FBI wasn’t going after the case. Strike Two for crew. The third option was the website and then trying to get the story into the blogosphere.
I’ve seen many on this board go into full blown Bush Derangement Syndrome based on miniscule amounts of evidence. Sometimes as little as a mispoken word or two by a public official. When presented with public mainstream sources and FBI officials who are named. Suddenly that isn’t even enough.
At this point it’s kind of silly to continue to argue facts against opinion, since the opinions of some will never change regardless of facts.
You still have no facts, you made this up like “recent polls”(which even BB said “it is the most recent”), look at crew’s website you’ll see they are non-partisan, the fact that they immediately turned in the emails to the fbi should say something as well…
When you’re called on s–t just fess up.
Again there is no evidence that democrats/democratic party had anything to do with this, just evidence to the contrary as EVERYBODY in here knows except for ZAP who is also factually challenged.
If you were right you’d be posting links…Everyone can see that you’re not, by the way I’d love to see some of my lies—it’ll never happen though.
[/quote]
Your dementia is pretty bad.
Address the points, post something to refute it or shut the fuck up.
Your tired liberal tactic of ignoring the argument simply isn’t playing with me or anyone else. And your still a hack.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Even a little research reveals that CREW is a watchdog group, in name only funded by Soros, to go after the GOP. Common knowledge and easily verifiable. Republicans do the same the same thing, we just don’t claim that the groups are independent. Now according to CREW the FBI is wrong also. It’s all a vast rightwing conspiracy. God I am so glad we have Diebold in our pickets too.
Hedo, again, do you have any proof that CREW has any type of relationship with Soros above and beyond the fact that he donated some money?
I mean, if what we are seeing is word games on the notion of “providing funding” then you are looking at spin. So, please, if you have something more definitive than the wording used in the media, then let’s see it.
However, while you are so quick to assume CREW is completely at fault, you are quick to assume the FBI could never have been told to bury the issue when they made some initial calls.
I want to see more information… it’s very early in the game, with respect to CREW, with respect to the FBI actions, and so on. If there was a cover up, then it’s not hard to imagine undue use of influence in various ways.
If there wasn’t a coverup, then it surely could have been summarily dismissed by the FBI and those in office for the reasons stated.
Maybe you should be suspicious of both sides, since you seem to claim that both sides use the same tactics. To me, it looks like you are willing to accept word games from one side, in order to pick a stance, yet at the same time claim malfeasance from both parties.
One of these things is not consistent.
I don’t know what exactly transpired, but I do hope that upcoming testimony under oath will help to uncover some of the truth. It’s an important issue and I dislike the attempts to whitewash this with partisan paint.
It’s also important to distinguish whether a group of liberal leaning people knew about this information or whether democrats in office knew about this information. It seems like some people are assuming that every liberal alive knew if CREW knew.
Let’s strive for some accuracy in details and not accept a whitewash, from anyone, including large media outlets. Just because it is printed doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to be carefully scrutinized to get underneath the spin attached to it!
Well Vroom very good quations. I don’t know why the investigative media hasn’t asked them?
It’s not my responsibility or interest to do research beyond sourcing off the internet. CREW is well known to be funded by Soros and I am sure public records could be found to support the idea. Simply looking at their literature reveals they are partisan to the extreme. Hardly a “watchdog” group.
As to the FBI participating in a coverup to further one politcal party over another. Not likely. People can choose to believe the FBI participated in some vast conspiracy but I doubt it. Much more likely is they decided not to pursue a case that had no legal merit. This infuriated CREW and Soros who then tried another way to get the story out. The St. Petersburg Times decided not to run the story because the FBI wasn’t going after the case. Strike Two for crew. The third option was the website and then trying to get the story into the blogosphere.
I’ve seen many on this board go into full blown Bush Derangement Syndrome based on miniscule amounts of evidence. Sometimes as little as a mispoken word or two by a public official. When presented with public mainstream sources and FBI officials who are named. Suddenly that isn’t even enough.
At this point it’s kind of silly to continue to argue facts against opinion, since the opinions of some will never change regardless of facts.
You still have no facts, you made this up like “recent polls”(which even BB said “it is the most recent”), look at crew’s website you’ll see they are non-partisan, the fact that they immediately turned in the emails to the fbi should say something as well…
[/quote]
Non partisan? What a fucking joke. You are out of your mind. They take their money and marching orders from George Soros.
Just as there is no EVIDENCE the Republicans had anything to do with this. Just a bunch of hearsay bullshit.
It seems everyone on Capitol Hill knew what was going on with Foley. If the Dems did not know they are morons and cannot be trusted to dogsit.
Coming from someone that denies Clinton perjured himself and believe that his disbarrment was voluntary I take this as a compliment.
You are one of the most dishonest posters (besides the true lunatics) in the political forums.
You have been called on a number of them already and you continue to deny it. Very Clintonesque.
It looks like the Clinton defense is alive and well…
Ur F’ed if that is the best that you can do.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Non partisan? What a fucking joke. You are out of your mind. They take their money and marching orders from George Soros.[/quote]
Zap, no offense, but the fact that certain media outlets say this doesn’t mean it is so.
Do you have anything to support this, because it would be significant to see it. All I’ve heard, so far, is that Soros donated a couple hundred grand or something.
This doesn’t mean he was personally aware of the donation or that he has any say in the affairs of the group. If it’s out there, in more than just implication by spun reporting, I’d really like to see the source information that supports it. If nobody is showing the source information but they are making such claims (news media) then they are being irresponsible and presenting spin.
Well, there are apparently a couple of republican guys, aids or whatnot, who intend to state, under oath, that they brought various things to the attention of the leadership well in advance of the circus event.
If that does happen, then there will indeed be evidence. I hope your news outlets have informed you that this appears to be in the works.
Okay, so we go from no evidence to everyone knew. So, again, if everyone knew, perhaps the leadership of the party the guy was part of should have done something about it?
Something is inconsistent in your statements. If everyone knew, then who had the responsibility to do something about it, if anyone?
Anyway, again, I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I am trying very hard to highlight what I see as media induced beliefs in misinformation and spin. So many things are somehow “known” but if we look for anything resembling evidence it is nowhere to be found.
Responsible media provides source information in support of conclusive statements about relationships and involvements. Responsible media does not magically convert a donation into Soros controlling a puppet democrat organization without some serious evidence to back it up.
Responsible media also does not equate a purported liberal organization having knowledge of something with “democrats” had knowledge of something.
Oh, I’m also not supporting 100m in his argument with you and Hedo, though I don’t think he is saying what a few of you seem to think he is saying. Anyway, I just have my own media spin axe to grind (even if nobody cares to hear it)…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Coming from someone that denies Clinton perjured himself and believe that his disbarrment was voluntary I take this as a compliment.
[/quote]
Technically he didn’t.
I didn’t say voluntary either. That was how he settled the case. Again fact. If you have anything to debunk–feel free…but evidence would be nice…
for example I posted link to the settlement…
[quote]vroom wrote:
…Something is inconsistent in your statements. If everyone knew, then who had the responsibility to do something about it, if anyone?
…[/quote]
Everyone? No one? Who the hell cares?
The only point is that to try to use this issue to tear down the Republican leadership based on hearsay and supposition while ignoring the very likely possibility that the Democratic leadership was well aware of the problems and chose to release them as an October surprise is hypocrisy.