![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From Twitter 08-15-2010
Aug. 16th, 2010 03:04 amTweets copied by twittinesis.com
Aug. 16th, 2010
System? Broken.
Aug. 16th, 2010 04:53 pmWhile Darrell Issa, the man who engineered the recall vote that put Der Arnold in the executive mansion in Sacramento, and the man who would chair the House Justice Committee when (not if) Republicans retake the House, pushes again and again for Obama to be investigated for anything and everything with or without any evidence...
... and while the crazies on the right claim that averting teacher layoffs amounts to "money laundering" for the Democratic Party...
... Obama's Department of Justice closes the investigation of Tom DeLay without charges.
What gets me here is, documents from DeLay's office helped convict Abramoff and Ney. If you can't convict DeLay, how do THEIR convictions stand up?
This pretty much HAS to be a behind-the-scenes order from the Abettor-in-Chief to quash the investigation. I just can't see how it could be anything else- not when DeLay has admitted to pretty much everything he's accused of.
But WHY? What does Obama gain by repeatedly thwarting any attempt to investigate or prosecute Republican lawmakers, current and former? His restraint WON'T be reciprocated- he must know this- and his thwarting of justice harms our country by making a mockery of the laws the Republicans have broken.
It makes sense if Obama wants to be able to do the same things the Republicans are doing... but is Obama really looking to launder corporate money for political purposes? Is Obama seeking to take lobbyist dough in exchange for supporting certain legislation? Even considering that torture, kangaroo courts, lack of habeas corpus and unwarranted spying on American citizens has been continued (and in some cases accelerated) under Obama... it's just plain inconceivable for him to be using the presidency in the same selfish, corrupt, and shameless manner DeLay used his power in the Republican Party and Congress.
What is wrong with this president, that he thinks protecting Republicans (who would love to see him keel over dead) is more important than upholding the law?
... and while the crazies on the right claim that averting teacher layoffs amounts to "money laundering" for the Democratic Party...
... Obama's Department of Justice closes the investigation of Tom DeLay without charges.
What gets me here is, documents from DeLay's office helped convict Abramoff and Ney. If you can't convict DeLay, how do THEIR convictions stand up?
This pretty much HAS to be a behind-the-scenes order from the Abettor-in-Chief to quash the investigation. I just can't see how it could be anything else- not when DeLay has admitted to pretty much everything he's accused of.
But WHY? What does Obama gain by repeatedly thwarting any attempt to investigate or prosecute Republican lawmakers, current and former? His restraint WON'T be reciprocated- he must know this- and his thwarting of justice harms our country by making a mockery of the laws the Republicans have broken.
It makes sense if Obama wants to be able to do the same things the Republicans are doing... but is Obama really looking to launder corporate money for political purposes? Is Obama seeking to take lobbyist dough in exchange for supporting certain legislation? Even considering that torture, kangaroo courts, lack of habeas corpus and unwarranted spying on American citizens has been continued (and in some cases accelerated) under Obama... it's just plain inconceivable for him to be using the presidency in the same selfish, corrupt, and shameless manner DeLay used his power in the Republican Party and Congress.
What is wrong with this president, that he thinks protecting Republicans (who would love to see him keel over dead) is more important than upholding the law?
System? Broken.
Aug. 16th, 2010 04:53 pmWhile Darrell Issa, the man who engineered the recall vote that put Der Arnold in the executive mansion in Sacramento, and the man who would chair the House Justice Committee when (not if) Republicans retake the House, pushes again and again for Obama to be investigated for anything and everything with or without any evidence...
... and while the crazies on the right claim that averting teacher layoffs amounts to "money laundering" for the Democratic Party...
... Obama's Department of Justice closes the investigation of Tom DeLay without charges.
What gets me here is, documents from DeLay's office helped convict Abramoff and Ney. If you can't convict DeLay, how do THEIR convictions stand up?
This pretty much HAS to be a behind-the-scenes order from the Abettor-in-Chief to quash the investigation. I just can't see how it could be anything else- not when DeLay has admitted to pretty much everything he's accused of.
But WHY? What does Obama gain by repeatedly thwarting any attempt to investigate or prosecute Republican lawmakers, current and former? His restraint WON'T be reciprocated- he must know this- and his thwarting of justice harms our country by making a mockery of the laws the Republicans have broken.
It makes sense if Obama wants to be able to do the same things the Republicans are doing... but is Obama really looking to launder corporate money for political purposes? Is Obama seeking to take lobbyist dough in exchange for supporting certain legislation? Even considering that torture, kangaroo courts, lack of habeas corpus and unwarranted spying on American citizens has been continued (and in some cases accelerated) under Obama... it's just plain inconceivable for him to be using the presidency in the same selfish, corrupt, and shameless manner DeLay used his power in the Republican Party and Congress.
What is wrong with this president, that he thinks protecting Republicans (who would love to see him keel over dead) is more important than upholding the law?
... and while the crazies on the right claim that averting teacher layoffs amounts to "money laundering" for the Democratic Party...
... Obama's Department of Justice closes the investigation of Tom DeLay without charges.
What gets me here is, documents from DeLay's office helped convict Abramoff and Ney. If you can't convict DeLay, how do THEIR convictions stand up?
This pretty much HAS to be a behind-the-scenes order from the Abettor-in-Chief to quash the investigation. I just can't see how it could be anything else- not when DeLay has admitted to pretty much everything he's accused of.
But WHY? What does Obama gain by repeatedly thwarting any attempt to investigate or prosecute Republican lawmakers, current and former? His restraint WON'T be reciprocated- he must know this- and his thwarting of justice harms our country by making a mockery of the laws the Republicans have broken.
It makes sense if Obama wants to be able to do the same things the Republicans are doing... but is Obama really looking to launder corporate money for political purposes? Is Obama seeking to take lobbyist dough in exchange for supporting certain legislation? Even considering that torture, kangaroo courts, lack of habeas corpus and unwarranted spying on American citizens has been continued (and in some cases accelerated) under Obama... it's just plain inconceivable for him to be using the presidency in the same selfish, corrupt, and shameless manner DeLay used his power in the Republican Party and Congress.
What is wrong with this president, that he thinks protecting Republicans (who would love to see him keel over dead) is more important than upholding the law?
So.. is he Eisenhower... or Jackson?
Aug. 16th, 2010 09:31 pmWe'll soon know what Obama's really made of.
Judge orders Guantanamo prisoner released for lack of evidence
This leaves Obama with three options:
(1) Comply (which would demonstrate that he honors the law, and strongly suggest that he really does want to restore habeas corpus and treat Gitmo prisoners fairly)
(2) Appeal the ruling (which would demonstrate that he wants to retain the claimed presidential right to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge or evidence, but that he respects the law)
(3) Ignore the ruling (which would demonstrate contempt for the law and intent to hold anybody he feels like for as long as he feels like)
So, which will it be? Obama cheering a restoration of American justice as it should be? Obama using the legal process to defend imprisonment without charge on the grounds of expediency?
Or Obama saying, to paraphrase Old Hickory, that the judge has made his ruling, now let him try to enforce it?
Quite honestly I'm betting on the last one.
Judge orders Guantanamo prisoner released for lack of evidence
This leaves Obama with three options:
(1) Comply (which would demonstrate that he honors the law, and strongly suggest that he really does want to restore habeas corpus and treat Gitmo prisoners fairly)
(2) Appeal the ruling (which would demonstrate that he wants to retain the claimed presidential right to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge or evidence, but that he respects the law)
(3) Ignore the ruling (which would demonstrate contempt for the law and intent to hold anybody he feels like for as long as he feels like)
So, which will it be? Obama cheering a restoration of American justice as it should be? Obama using the legal process to defend imprisonment without charge on the grounds of expediency?
Or Obama saying, to paraphrase Old Hickory, that the judge has made his ruling, now let him try to enforce it?
Quite honestly I'm betting on the last one.
So.. is he Eisenhower... or Jackson?
Aug. 16th, 2010 09:31 pmWe'll soon know what Obama's really made of.
Judge orders Guantanamo prisoner released for lack of evidence
This leaves Obama with three options:
(1) Comply (which would demonstrate that he honors the law, and strongly suggest that he really does want to restore habeas corpus and treat Gitmo prisoners fairly)
(2) Appeal the ruling (which would demonstrate that he wants to retain the claimed presidential right to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge or evidence, but that he respects the law)
(3) Ignore the ruling (which would demonstrate contempt for the law and intent to hold anybody he feels like for as long as he feels like)
So, which will it be? Obama cheering a restoration of American justice as it should be? Obama using the legal process to defend imprisonment without charge on the grounds of expediency?
Or Obama saying, to paraphrase Old Hickory, that the judge has made his ruling, now let him try to enforce it?
Quite honestly I'm betting on the last one.
Judge orders Guantanamo prisoner released for lack of evidence
This leaves Obama with three options:
(1) Comply (which would demonstrate that he honors the law, and strongly suggest that he really does want to restore habeas corpus and treat Gitmo prisoners fairly)
(2) Appeal the ruling (which would demonstrate that he wants to retain the claimed presidential right to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge or evidence, but that he respects the law)
(3) Ignore the ruling (which would demonstrate contempt for the law and intent to hold anybody he feels like for as long as he feels like)
So, which will it be? Obama cheering a restoration of American justice as it should be? Obama using the legal process to defend imprisonment without charge on the grounds of expediency?
Or Obama saying, to paraphrase Old Hickory, that the judge has made his ruling, now let him try to enforce it?
Quite honestly I'm betting on the last one.