OK, we broke the law. Sorry. It wasn't us, just some political appointees working for AG Gonzales and the Bush administration. You know, the be tough on crime bunch.
Will we prosecute? We'll get back to you on that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Okay, okay we'll investigate!.....Whew good, we found a fall guy. Here, SHE did it!"
They have to be kidding.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Will we prosecute? We'll get back to you on that.
The purpose of this investigation was not to determine whether a prosecution should occur.
quote:"Okay, okay we'll investigate!.....Whew good, we found a fall guy. Here, SHE did it!"
They have to be kidding.
Kidding about what? It sounds like you have some evidence of the involvement of other people. Perhaps you should send it to the investigator.
Or was that just an unsupported allegation?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I figured it was pretty obvious that they were throwing her to the wolves when they had her testify without the benefit of any competent coaching.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Whereas, had they coached her, people would complain that they fixed her testimony.
There are a whole host of criticisms that can be made against DoJ's actions in general, and Gonzales and Ashcroft in particular, on this issue. Why the urge to leap beyond them?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
It's frustrating to see Gonzales get away with what were most likely lies. How could he "forget" so much potentially relevant information?. I feel that there is over a 50% chance that Gonzales was lying given his extremely long and improbable string of "I don't recall"s (this is a very conservative estimate imo). However, we can't convict people on 60% confidence or even 95% confidence since that would result in an unacceptable number of innocent people in prison.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm just peeved that the justice depart continues to refuse to appoint a special prosecutor for this and other highly political investigations.
It seems that such cases are exactly the reason the special prosecutor law was created. Even if SHE was the only one involved, people will never believe it unless there is an independent non-partisan investigation.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dag, when an administration has constantly emphasized that "Loyalty is the Highest Virtue" they need to take at least partial responsibility when their trusted and loyal underlings take that credo past legal limits.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, we can't convict people on 60% confidence or even 95% confidence since that would result in an unacceptable number of innocent people in prison.
Threads, 95% can satisfy the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The standard is explicitly and purposefully not quantified. In fact, it is pretty much unconstitutional for a judge to attempt to quantify it in jury instructions.
quote:Dag, when an administration has constantly emphasized that "Loyalty is the Highest Virtue" they need to take at least partial responsibility when their trusted and loyal underlings take that credo past legal limits.
That would be one of the "host of criticisms that can be made against DoJ's actions in general, and Gonzales and Ashcroft in particular."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Whereas, had they coached her, people would complain that they fixed her testimony.
These things are not actually contradictory, Dags. It is true that, had she been coached, people would have complained that she had been coached. However, the fact that they did not coach her made it obvious to me that they were sacrificing her.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I didn't say they contradicted each other. i presented the other horn of their dilemma.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Given the obvious extent of the coaching they've given to almost everyone else who's ever testified on behalf of the administration, I don't think it's a dilemma that's ever bothered them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:There are a whole host of criticisms that can be made against DoJ's actions in general, and Gonzales and Ashcroft in particular, on this issue. Why the urge to leap beyond them?
I'm not leaping beyond, I'm aiming directly for them.
Do I have proof? Of course not, but that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to place on judgement on how everything looks, especially given the previous actions of this government and this Department of Justice over the last seven years. And even more so on this particular issue. They've refused for a long time now to comply with any outside investigation, and then miraculously out of the blue a name pops out that isn't even close to a high level official.
Do I necessarily NEED for a high level official to be prosecuted over this? No I don't. But do I believe that not one but two Attorneys General really have that little knowledge of what goes on in their own department and that something that has been such a big thorn in their side for more than a year now took this long to isolate a single person? That's just too much to swallow, at least without independent confirmation that that was in fact the case.
So is that an unsupported allegation? No I don't think it is. It's based on a history of this administration's deceitfulness over the years, and this particular department's history of total ineptitude and overriding loyalty to the Bush Administration at the upper levels.
Do I have enough proof to prosecute? Of course I don't. Do I have enough to justifiably not take what they tell me at face value? I think so, yes, and I think most others here would agree with me on that.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:However, we can't convict people on 60% confidence or even 95% confidence since that would result in an unacceptable number of innocent people in prison.
Threads, 95% can satisfy the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The standard is explicitly and purposefully not quantified. In fact, it is pretty much unconstitutional for a judge to attempt to quantify it in jury instructions.
Well that's unfortunate. It means our prisons are loaded with innocent people whose lives have been unfairly destroyed.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The real problem is in the present AG.
He has been on the air claiming that "This will not happen again." However, all he has to back up his claim is his, and the administration's promise. If administration already put its faith in people who broke the law for them (not under their orders or with their approval per sei, but doing so "for the Conservative/Republican/Administration cause, then they were doing it for them) how can we, as citizens, be sure it is not still happening.
An independent investigation is needed to restore some trust in those who keep requiring us to trust them.