Make no mistake this is about Obstuction of Justice and Abuse of Power

[hang a left]

I know the argument has been bandied around that there have been no laws broken. When the truth comes out, and we get to the nitty gritty of what Lam has, this is exactly what it will be about.

[liberal N proud]

1. This is about more than obstruction of justice

Obstruction is just the one thing they "MAY" be able to nail bu$h for. But this is about the future of America and the office of the President of the United States. If this piece of shit gets away with this, then there is no longer a democracy, republic and there is no office of the President, he would be a monarch at that point. If Congress lets him get his way here, they may as well adjourn and go home because they are null and void by allowing him such broad, unchecked powers.
This is also about bu$h knowing that should Karl Rove testify under oath that he will either purger himself or implicate the regime including bu$h Cheney and Rove all three.

This is a very pivotal point in American history and bu$h's reign of terror over the world.

Will congress have the guts for this fight?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

11. What's to prevent some administration fat cat from committing any crime at all now

treason, murder, you name it, and on the even of bringing charges having the US attorney investigating it get replaced with a lap dog who drops the whole affair? When a US attorney is replaced when a specific investigation for criminal wrongdoing by members of the administration is pending, that's a real ugly thing, something the People cannot tolerate.

[sendero]

2. I agree 100%...

... and if a blow job is important enough to talk about under oath, I think obstruction of justice rises to that level.

[ClintonTyree]

3. No laws have been broken....

that we KNOW of. It's quite evident that Bush is determined to keep it that way. If all the evidence is examined and witnesses' testimony, under oath, is considered, then, THEN we'd know that laws HAVE been broken. This is Bush's Watergate. This is what will, at long last, bring him down. The lying son of a bitch has jumped the freakin' shark here.

[originalpckelly]

4. You don't know that with certainty. We have strong suspicions that it's true...

but when it comes to something serious like this we need to be responsible, and actually focus on what the evidence supports.

There is great suspicion, for good reason because of these following facts:
1. The fact, in and of itself, that Carol Lam and allegedly two other of these US Attorneys were prosecuting/investigating Republicans is incredibly suspicious and has (and should have) set off loud alarms about obstruction of justice. There is no way to know for certain from any e-mail provided to know that this strong suspicion is true, however.

I've only just begun to think about evidence that would confirm or deny this suspicion, so I can't say how we'd find this out as of yet.

2. Mr. Iglesias testified under oath that he received two calls from two different members of Congress, Senator Pete Domenici and Representative Heather Wilson, both of New Mexico. Iglesias also testified that Wilson called him first and that their call was about possible sealed indictments in the investigation of New Mexico's state treasurer, he recalls telling her some general statements about sealed indictments, she seemed very disappointed. Iglesias recalls talking to Domenici about indictments and whether or not they would come before November's election. In both cases it seemed to Mr. Iglesias this was a type of pressure being exerted on him to push up the indictments, if they do/did indeed exist.

Both Wilson and Domenici have denied this allegation of pressure publicly, but it should be noted that both were not under oath and Mr. Iglesias was. Wilson and Domenici did both confirm they had a conversation with Iglesias.

I think there is a way to resolve this, if we can get the following evidence:
Put Domenici and Wilson under oath and ask them specifically about what Mr. Iglesias said.
Put Domenici's Chief of Staff under oath and ask him if he overheard the conversation and if he did, then what did they say. (Mr. Iglesias recalls that Domenici's Chief of Staff actually made the call and then somehow transfered the call to Domenici. I do not remember or it was not clear in Mr. Iglesias testimony how Domenici's Chief of Staff placed the call, whether he was physically present on Mr. Domenici's side of the conversation or whether he placed the call through some type of electronic device on behalf of Domenici.)

Call records would not reveal any further information, unless someone suspicious was contacted right after either member of Congress called, because parties to both telephone conversations agree that they had the telephone conversation.

If we are going to prove this, we will have to find out if anyone was contacted or a plan hatched to retaliate against Mr. Iglesias, among others.

3. In the case of John McKay, he was contacted by Doc Hastings Chief of Staff to ask about any possible voter fraud investigation in relation to the highly controversial 2004 Washington state Gubernatorial election, where a Democrat won by a slim margin. Mr. McKay determined he had stopped the COS before he could get into any really questionable territory, after a deliberation with other members of Mr. McKay's office. Mr. McKay has also reported being questioned about the 2004 Washington State Gubernatorial election during an interview for a judgeship. Mr. McKay not only was not selected for the judgeship, but would eventually be fired. This is highly suspicious, though we do not have evidence of a direct link between the two.

I have only begun to think about possible evidence here as well.



I know this is not easy to hear, but I'm trying to get a hard case if there really is something here. I don't really care if we go after Gonzales in other areas, but I don't feel devoted to find shit to throw at him, I'm just concerned about any real impact on the justice system, and there has been a highly suspicious even that might affect that system. I'm now trying to do my best as a non-official to investigate it.

[hang a left]

5. With respect to the Cunningham investigation and where that was headed:

I don't know any other way than to ask pointed questions of Lam under oath. Of course she will not be able to comment on the GJ process but we might be able to get some hints as to where she was heading. The only way we will get to the bottom of that pile is to let her finish her job.

[originalpckelly]

7. We don't have to guess, we know that CIA (think executive branch) officials were indicted...

by the SDCA San Diego office. We know where they were headed, because we've seen what they did. We just don't know if it affects any other administration officials.

We can't ask her questions about that, nor can the Congress.

We also don't have to. We need to focus on the possible conspirators, because even if Lam wasn't going to prosecute anyone and they though she was and tried to interfere with her, then that would still be a crime or at least an impeachable offense.

[durtee librul]

6. I can't find the link to the thread from the other day,

but someone posted the DOJ has 'investigated' over 250 dems and 'only' 67 Repukes since Bushie took office.....if that don't speak volumes about political partianship, then I must be drinking the kookaid as well as them.

THIS FACT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE PLAYED ON M$M!

And I completely agree...this has to be airtight so the basturds don't skate.

[originalpckelly]

8. We need more damning and direct evidence.

We need to prove or disprove that there was a conspiracy to obstruct justice, and we really need to be honest and apolitical (I know that's very hard) because of the seriousness of this.

[hang a left]

9. I am sure you say the article regarding the $140,000 contract

that went to the criminal that bought the boat for Cunningham? I read something about Cheney involved in that.

Me thinks that Lam's digging may end up making Duke Cunningham look like Richie Cunningham.

[originalpckelly]

12. Yeppers. I'm thinking that's what happened here.

It's just too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence. I'm trying to follow the horny and the money.

[hedda_foil]

10. Everything with *co is about Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Power

That's their guiding philosophy of governance.