Fitzgerald investigation details.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

in the public interest

Postby blanc » Tue May 23, 2006 6:17 am

Yup anti aristo, I didn't mean to imply that it only operated in favour of the sadistic ritual abusers of children, merely that it clearly demonstrates how in the public interest is anything but. I mean, when national security gets waved about, its a neat way of shutting up dissenting voices; when complicated sounding financial dealings and pension funds are at stake, many feel themselves too inexpert to comment, but child rape? <p></p><i></i>
blanc
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: in the public interest

Postby sunny » Tue May 23, 2006 9:29 am

anti! Thanks for reminding me of the citizenspook take on runaway grand juries. That is almost certainly where I got my information, and had forgotten all about it. (where the hell is he, btw?)<br><br>Starman, your analysis is excellent and right on and much appreciated.<br>You said:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If McNulty just didn't sign it, he and the court would likely expect that it would then just die<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>My problem is, what <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>could</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> the gj do if their presentment is ignored? Go stand out in front of the court house and scream bloody murder? Go to the press?(heh) Would it help to go to the judge? Citzenspook offers no solution should such a thing occur. Go back up and click on the link to the Hustler article. A couple of those jurors in that case wrote a book and outed the whole thing, but doing so most certainly left them vulnerable to prosecution for violating the rules on gj secrecy. <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sunny@rigorousintuition>sunny</A> at: 5/23/06 7:37 am<br></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re:REMEMBER Gonzales' stunt with Andy Card

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue May 23, 2006 1:08 pm

reading DU today was reminded of this<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant/the-gonzalescard-leak-w_b_4619.html" target="top">www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant/the-gonzalescard-leak-w_b_4619.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Allow me to remind you abu Gonzales' stunt with Andy Card in Sept '03. <br> What did White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card learn from Alberto Gonzales and when did he learn it ... and what did he do with that knowledge? This "whole new can of worms" (to quote CBS News' Bob Schieffer, on Sunday's Face the Nation) is to me the breaking news question of the day.<br><br>Why? Because on the show, Alberto Gonzales admitted that he called Andrew Card right after he was notified that the Justice Department had opened its investigation of the Plame leak ... even though he formally notified The White House staff 12 hours later.<br> <br>Gonzales wouldn't be the first AG to be indicted for obstruction and conspiracy:<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell" target="top">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>"John Newton Mitchell (September 15, 1913 – November 9, 198<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> was the first United States Attorney General ever to be convicted of illegal activities and imprisoned.<br><br>On February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up..... he had met, on at least three occasions, with the president in an effort to cover up White House involvement.... In 1972, he warned reporter Carl Bernstein about a forthcoming Watergate-related article: "Katie Graham's gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringer if that's published." This threat against the Washington Post publisher is considered the most famous threat in the history of American journalism." <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Obsolescent?

Postby antiaristo » Tue May 23, 2006 8:53 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>the 1946 Federal Rules of Criminal Prosecution, which 4th rule was held to mean that the sole authority of the Grand Jury's Presentment independent of an Indictment was rendered 'obsolete'. As Citizen Spook shows us, 'obsolete' does NOT mean 'null-and-void' -- since that would constitute a law or ruling to reverse statute. Through official statute and Supreme Court official's own rulings, Citizen Spook shows us that the original and CONTINUING by-law intent of the Grand Jury was to be a duly-authorized and fully-empanneled 4th branch of Government that has sole discretionary authority -- it doesn't depend on the officers of Court to follow an investigation where it leads or to require a trial.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Right you are, Starman.<br>But the trouble is that they have introduced an element of uncertainty, an element of doubt, haven't they?<br><br>And where there is doubt, the powerful will always prevail.<br><br>That's why they create so much doubt, in so many areas.<br>Behind the smokescreen, issues are being settled not on the basis of logic and law, but on the basis of who is in a position to kill whom.<br><br>That's how far we've regressed.<br><br>We've been hearing rumblings about impeaching the President.<br>Do you know where you got impeachment from?<br><br>It comes from England, from the English common law.<br><br>Since the invasion of Iraq there have been a few efforts at impeaching Tony Blair.<br><br>They got nowhere.<br><br>We have been told that impeachment is "obsolete".<br>The English common law, obsolete?<br><br>That ruling is made by the Speaker of the House of Commons.<br>The Speaker got his name for speaking to the King on behalf of the Members of the House of Commons. He was the "workplace representative".<br><br>But like so many other ways, the Queen has used her powers under the Treason Felony Act to reverse a natural function.<br><br>The Speaker now acts as enforcer, keeping Members in line, on behalf of the Crown. He manages the Order of Business, and no impeachment motions are allowed<br><br>For example, Sinn Fein Members are NOT ALLOWED to take up their seats on behalf of their electorate. Because they refuse to swear an oath of absolute obedience to Queen Elizabeth.<br><br>That is enforced by Michael Martin, the Speaker.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Martin was born in <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Glasgow, Scotland</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, in 1945, the son of a merchant seaman and a school cleaner. He attended St. Patrick's Boys School in Anderston, before leaving at the age of 15 to become an apprentice sheet-metal worker. He became involved in the Sheet Metal Workers trade union and joined the Labour Party when he was 21. He later worked in the Rolls Royce plant at Hillington, and was an AUEW shop steward from 1970 to 1974.<br><br>In 1973, Martin was elected as a councillor on Glasgow Corporation — a position he retained until he was elected to the UK Parliament. He also served as a trade union organiser with the National Union of Public Employees (NUPE) between 1976 and 1979. He was elected as MP for Glasgow Springburn in the 1979 general election, and was associated with the right-wing of the party. He was a supporter of Roy Hattersley and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Denis Healey, whom he served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary from 1980 until 1983</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->.<br><br>Denis Healey, leading light of Bilderberg.<br><br>I'm not trying to hijack the thread.<br>But the rules are not being followed.<br><br>In your country, just like mine.<br><br>They've honed these techniques in England by manipulating the English common law.<br><br>America's legal system is based on English (not British) common law.<br><br>Those same techniques will work over there.<br><br>Added on edit<br><br>I have to put this here.<br>I've just had a quick look at The Huffington Post<br><br>The headline?<br><br><br><!--EZCODE CENTER START--><div style="text-align:center"><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:medium;">Laura Bush vs. Karl Rove On Gay Marriage…</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--></div><!--EZCODE CENTER END--><br><br><br>Oh America!<br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 5/23/06 7:09 pm<br></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

So True

Postby greencrow0 » Tue May 23, 2006 9:37 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Re: Validity of Presentment, Runaway Grand Jury is TOTAL<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> For some reason, every few weeks, a lot of us slip in to thinking that once caught 'red handed' Bush and Co. will simply hold up their hands and be marched off to prison for their crimes against this country and humanity. <br><br>We have got to absolutely and completely internalize the idea that this is never going to happen. No way. These bastards are playing for keeps, always have been, always will be and they will do anything, anything to protect their own asses. They crossed a rubicon on 9/11 and they know there is no going back from it. <br><br>Of course they will squash Fitzgerald. <br><br>Of course they will twist the laws of the land and the constitution to this end. <br><br>We are not fighting against normal people. (This is probably what the dems simply can't get their heads around)<br><br>We are fighting for our very lives against mad men who will stop at nothing. <br><br>But that's a pretty hard shift of thinking to make. Imagine if you lived the rest of this week knowing absolutely in your heart that you and your family are basically in great peril from a band of mad men and lunatics in power... 'be pretty hard to sit and surf the web, right?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzgerald investigation details.

Postby dugoboy » Thu May 25, 2006 8:20 pm

recent updates:<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/CIA_leak_filing_indicates_government_has_0525.html" target="top"><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">CIA leak filing indicates gov't has evidence regarding Cheney</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--></a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_0525.html" target="top"><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">MSNBC: Rove sources confirm Novak conversation; Fitzgerald turns toward Cheney</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--></a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>*sigh* <p>___________________________________________<br>"BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."</p><i></i>
dugoboy
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzgerald investigation details.

Postby chiggerbit » Thu May 25, 2006 9:05 pm

Wouldn't it be interesting, if after all the hoopla and all this time, after taking down the VP's buddy, and tying the shorts of most of the administration into one big knot, it turns out that the original person who revealed Plame's name gets nailed with the real crime, not the obstruction one? Not that I wouldn't settle for the obstruction one for any of them. But it would be a delight to see Novak take a long, hard fall. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzgerald investigation details.

Postby antiaristo » Fri May 26, 2006 7:59 am

Isn't it amazing how we've all forgotten?<br>Remember Brewster Jennings?<br><br>That's something Fitzgerald won't touch with a bargepole.<br><br>Fitzgerald is either complicit or cowed.<br><br>The system is broken, probably irretrievably <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzgerald investigation details.

Postby sunny » Fri May 26, 2006 9:12 am

Just wanted to direct the new folks here to the archives on all things Plame:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm26">p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm26</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>See especially the enormous thread on page 2 <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"Watergate level event" about to occur</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. Lots of info there, with Brewster-Jennings thoroughly explored.. <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

a chance to say big thanks again to Rocco

Postby AnnaLivia » Fri May 26, 2006 10:53 am

i haven't forgotten that indira singh (sp?) said in interview with michael corbin of 'for a closer look' radio, that fitzgerald has been used before to make sure a 'problematic' investigation goes only so far, and stops short of bigger truths.<br><br>i believe indira could safely be referred to as "being in the know". (what an understatement, tee hee!)<br><br>can't find my notes, so don't know what other previous investigations she was referring to. (and don't care, as i'm frying bigger fish.) <p></p><i></i>
AnnaLivia
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to Plame Investigation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests