2010.12.31
Norfolk newspaper chides Cuccinelli for ignoring Navy Vets scam
The Associated Press
One of The Roanoke Times’ sister newspapers, The Virginian Pilot, today slammed Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for ignoring a scam right under his nose while titling at imagined windmills such as climate science and the Affordable Care Act.
From PilotOnline.com
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is suing the federal government over the new health care law and demanding that the University of Virginia spit out 10-year-old e-mails written by and to a climate scientist formerly on the faculty. But he’s been happy to play second fiddle to Ohio in the case over the fraudulent U.S. Navy Veterans Association. The Buckeye State has charged the founder, whose real name and location remain unknown, with racketeering and money laundering. Cuccinelli donated the $55,000 he collected from “Bobby Thompson” to a real charity, but an investigation of the faux vet group is being handled by another state agency, and no charges have been filed in Virginia.
Let us not forget that Cuccinelli didn’t simply and immediately give up that $55,500 he got from “Bobby Thompson, whose fund-raising ability in Virginia had been shut down by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (and by Cuccinelli’s predecessor in the AG’s office).
No, no, no. Instead, Cuccinelli:
- Personally solicited the largest of three donations he accepted from “Thompson” ($50,000);
- Called a press conference and announced a plan for the AG’s office to take over oversight of charities from VDACS AFTER “Thompson” wrote the big check (the plan failed in the legislature);
- Was almost last in a line of other Virginia pols who gave up the funny-money campaign donations to legitimate veterans charities;
- Defended “Thompson” in the media long after it was obvious that the guy was an impostor and flimflam man;
- To this day has not initiated any investigation, by the law-enforcement agency he heads, of a phony veterans charity that has claimed on its own federal tax forms that it scammed Virginians out of $2.2 million.
And let us not forget that “Thompson” was recently featured on “America’s Most Wanted.” And that “Thompson” conned Cuccinell’s client, the Virginia General Assembly, into enacting a law that would allow the phony charity to resume scamming Virginians.
Cuccinelli should ask Gov. Bob McDonnell (whose campaign received $5,000 from “Thompson”) to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Thompson and how he managed to trick the Virginia General Assembly into enacting a 2010 law that would have allowed the U.S. Navy Vets to resume scamming Virginians. That law is still on the books.
And if our Attorney General refuses to do that, McDonnell should launch the investigation anyway.
$55K does buy you something.
Comment by Ron — December 31, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
What a return on investment. $60,000 invested to make $2.2 million and our government nor legislature seems to be interested in how it happened.
Comment by Ray — December 31, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
titling at imagined windmills such as climate science and the Affordable Care Act.
Oh, you missed it. A federal judge agrees with Cuccinnelli on 0bamacare which almost certainly now won’t survive. Dude was cutting edge on that one.
The MMGW scam is also falling apart like a house of cards. Again, Ken is ahead of the curve.
Comment by Suzie — January 1, 2011 @ 8:36 am
“And if our Attorney General refuses to do that, McDonnell should launch the investigation anyway.”
Why don’t we investigate ALL questionable contribution whether they be to Democrats or Republicans?
Because Dan might have to criticize his own party.
Comment by Henry — January 1, 2011 @ 8:46 am
Why investigate fraudulent fund raising and campaign donations when there are professors out there to be harrassed.
Comment by Kristen — January 1, 2011 @ 9:01 am
I agree with Henry. Investigate ALL contributions to Democrats and Republicans by identity thieves who have created phony veterans’ charities.
Name the others who did this, Henry. We’ll get right on it.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 1, 2011 @ 9:38 am
Oh, you missed it, Suzie. TWO federal judges disagreed with his argument, and the one who PARTIALLY agreed is a well-known Republican Party hack. 1 and 2 may be cutting edge to you, but spare the rest of us.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 1, 2011 @ 9:43 am
Great. Let’s look into Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, John Huang and Ray Riady. Let’s send Clinton to jail for treason for the hundreds of thousands he got from the Chinese Communists.
Comment by Suzie — January 1, 2011 @ 10:12 am
Dan’ it’s going to be rather hard to do since the people doing the investigating (e.g. journalists) are working for the Democrats.
But we can start with illegal contributions to Charlie Rangel and Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama and Chris Dodd.
Comment by Henry — January 1, 2011 @ 10:30 am
Awww, Henry. It’s OK for you to investigate! Why would you place all that burden on journalists?
Comment by Dan Casey — January 1, 2011 @ 10:37 am
#8 Been looked into. Try to keep up in the New Year, toots.
Comment by gdad — January 1, 2011 @ 10:45 am
Let’s send Clinton to jail for treason for the hundreds of thousands he got from the Chinese Communists.
Comment by Suzie — January 1, 2011 @ 10:12 am
Wow. Someone has absolutely.zero.clue. what the definition of treason is.
Suzie, allow me to suggest a NY resolution for you….in the new year, why not try getting some information on a topic before you start digitally regurgitating about it. Just trying to be helpful.
Comment by Kristen — January 1, 2011 @ 10:54 am
The U.S. Constitution is quite clear on what constitutes “treason.”
“Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”
But how could we expect Suzie to know that, given the other tripe she posts here?
Comment by Dan Casey — January 1, 2011 @ 11:18 am
Which is why even Robert Hanssen wasn’t convicted of “treason” but instead “espionage”.
Comment by Kristen — January 1, 2011 @ 11:35 am
The treasonous part, for you morons, are the military secrets Clinton gave the Chicoms in exchange for all that campaign cash. Did you think the commies gave Bubba money because they thought he would be a good honest president?
Comment by Suzie — January 1, 2011 @ 2:12 pm
Clinton did not pass military secrets to Chinese Communists, Suzie.
And even if he had, it wouldn’t be treason, which is quite well-defined in the constitution. Another fail. . .
Comment by Dan Casey — January 1, 2011 @ 3:03 pm
Suzie Q has been reading too much Bob Barr lately. I guess listening to Hush Limpbag isn’t enough for her.
Comment by Ron — January 1, 2011 @ 3:41 pm
#15 Give us all the details about those secrets, toots.
That’s what I thought. Making stuff up again.
Comment by gdad — January 1, 2011 @ 5:38 pm
Don’t you just love the gifts that keep on giving? So you offer a fervent promise to raise awareness and provide debate and then immediately start lying and misrepresenting facts yet again. The Conservatives (the real ones) really should stop you as you do far more damage to them and their positions than our best efforts. But I sincerely appreciate it.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 1, 2011 @ 6:39 pm
#18 Give us all the details about things I’m incorrect about, granddad.
That’s what I thought. Making stuff up again.
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — January 1, 2011 @ 7:25 pm
Does Dan really believe selling military secrets to China doesn’t constitute treason?
Comment by Suzie — January 1, 2011 @ 9:59 pm
Suzie,
It doesn’t matter what I believe treason is, or what you believe treason is. The constitution defines what it is, no matter what you may believe. And even IF Clinton had personally given military secrets to the Chinese (and there’s no credible evidence he did), it would not (and could not) constitute treason under article III.
I can explain it TO you, but I can’t understand it FOR you.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 1, 2011 @ 10:14 pm
“Does Dan really believe selling mili….”
ZZZzzzzzzz……
Comment by Art Hill — January 1, 2011 @ 10:16 pm
12.Let’s send Clinton to jail for treason for the hundreds of thousands he got from the Chinese Communists.
Comment by Suzie — January 1, 2011 @ 10:12 am
Wow. Someone has absolutely.zero.clue. what the definition of treason is.
Suzie, allow me to suggest a NY resolution for you….in the new year, why not try getting some information on a topic before you start digitally regurgitating about it. Just trying to be helpful.
That is delightful Kristen!
Comment by Tony — January 1, 2011 @ 10:52 pm
You know, with such a lax definition of “treason” I am fairly certain a case could be made that the Bush administration allowing so many civilian defense industry people to work overseas “for profit” and so many corporations and defense related businesses to be sold to overseas interests were also treason.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 1, 2011 @ 11:16 pm
The leftwing morons can’t give us a reason Clinton can’t be tried for treason. All they can say is “well, it isn’t in the constitution”. Let’s hear specifically why, morons. I know the reason most people aren’t tried for it, but let’s hear you kooks try to tell us why they can’t.
Crickets.
Comment by Suzie — January 2, 2011 @ 10:38 am
Should Suzie be tried for murder? Why not?
Comment by Dan Casey — January 2, 2011 @ 10:53 am
#26 Of course we can give a reason why Clinton can’t be tried for treason — there’s no evidence. There you go, dolt. Owned again.
Comment by gdad — January 2, 2011 @ 10:56 am
#20 OMG, it’s stalking me again.
Comment by gdad — January 2, 2011 @ 10:58 am
No, Dan said people can’t be tried for treason selling secrets to the government, when they most certainly can. Numerous people have been convicted for treason during non-war time. Now he’s backing off.
Comment by Suzie — January 2, 2011 @ 11:15 am
#30 Suzie, I’m just following your pattern in these things — change the parameters of the thread to suit myself. You do it all the time. So I gave you a reason — no evidence.
Bye, bye
Comment by gdad — January 2, 2011 @ 11:32 am
“No, Dan said people can’t be tried for treason selling secrets to the government, when they most certainly can.”
Never wrote that. Never thought that. Suzie is making it up, and arguing with the Constitution.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 2, 2011 @ 11:46 am
#32 Suzie changes what people said or changes the parameters of the topic more and more often these days. I guess a person who thinks of herself as God assumes she can get away with that.
Comment by gdad — January 2, 2011 @ 11:53 am
Not only doesn’t she know anything but she can’t even be taught.
Comment by Kristen — January 2, 2011 @ 3:20 pm
“Should Suzie be tried for murder?”
He should be tried for female impersonation. Why do the wingnuts always try to steer everything back to the Clenis?
Comment by Art Hill — January 2, 2011 @ 4:59 pm
He should be tried for female impersonation<….said the guy who is also “Belle”.
Poodle, isn’t about time you call for a blog-wide boycott of me again?
Comment by Suzie — January 2, 2011 @ 5:32 pm
My comment:
Does Dan really believe selling military secrets to China doesn’t constitute treason?
Dan’s earlier comment:
And even IF Clinton had personally given military secrets to the Chinese (and there’s no credible evidence he did), it would not (and could not) constitute treason
And now Dan’s revised comment:
Dan’s Never wrote that. Never thought that. Suzie is making it up
I dunno, it’s like these people think we can’t scroll back to see what they said. Dude ought to be a Democrat politician.
Comment by Suzie — January 2, 2011 @ 5:38 pm
Clinton can’t be tried for treason because he did not commit treason!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 2, 2011 @ 5:42 pm
Should Suzie be tried for murder? Well she has killed decency, civility, intelligent debate and many a thread topic. Hummm.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 2, 2011 @ 5:44 pm
Suzie,
The question here is twofold:
One concerns “sell” vs. “give.” You wrote the former; I wrote the latter; you accused me of writing/thinking the former. Your own previous post proves I did not. (Thank you). You may not recognize the difference in those verbs, but the English language does. Just check any dictionary, kiddo. Or ask yourself this: All those wonderful donations that you brag about you and hubby making to less fortunate people — do you give them, or do you sell them?
The other is the question of treason. It may in fact be espionage to give or sell secrets to the Chinese. But it’s not “treason” unless it meets the very clear definition our forefathers wrote into the constitution.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 2, 2011 @ 5:51 pm
Dan is splitting hairs, implying there is some difference between selling and giving as it pertains to our treason argument. Finally, he admits espionage can indeed amount to treason, which is in agreement with the my earlier claim.
Shazam!
Comment by Suzie — January 2, 2011 @ 6:14 pm
Well, the constitution does not give a lot of clarity on what constitutes treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Selling or giving information and secrets (Aid and Comfort) to an enemy of the US certainly IS treason, though I’m not sure China qualifies as an enemy (we’re not at war with them). It might be easier to make a charge of espionage stick than treason.
BUT…No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. So unless one has two witnesses willing to testify, or the accused confesses in open court, he will not be convicted. Congress has the authority to sentence death, but relatives and future generations of the accused cannot be punished (no Corruption of Blood).
Comment by 89Hoo — January 2, 2011 @ 6:15 pm
Clinton can’t be tried for treason because he did not commit treason!
How could you possibly know, bimbette? You were no doubt fetching coffee for somebody during those years.
Comment by Suzie — January 2, 2011 @ 6:15 pm
If there is no difference between selling and giving, then Suzie is selling her donations to less fortunate folks. How cruel that she makes them pay her for her (apparent) charity.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 2, 2011 @ 6:22 pm
89Hoo understands it — unlike Suzie.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 2, 2011 @ 6:23 pm
Well, anyone can be TRIED for treason, but convicting them is a different proposition.
Comment by 89Hoo — January 2, 2011 @ 6:40 pm
I can possibly know just as easily as you can possibly know, shrew!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 2, 2011 @ 7:02 pm
“isn’t about time you call for a blog-wide boycott of me again?
Comment by Butch”
Why, yes. Yes it is!
Comment by Art Hill — January 2, 2011 @ 7:02 pm
Loose screws Suz starts her New Year being beaten like a Gov’t mule. Why am I not shocked?
Comment by Steve C — January 2, 2011 @ 7:19 pm
89Hoo also agrees with me that selling military secrets can be treason. As does Dan. Makes you wonder why the leftwingers are saying I don’t understand treason since they all agree with me. LOL.
Comment by Suzie — January 2, 2011 @ 7:27 pm
Not anyone can be TRIED for treason, 89Hoo. First, the government has to establish probable cause that treason has been committed. In terms of Clinton and the Chinese, that has been established only is Suzie’s bizarre psyche — and nowhere else. Not even Sarah Palin has gone down that road.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 2, 2011 @ 8:15 pm
Failure to glean the required confession or two witnesses – even in a case where we are NOT at war – does not constitute lack of treason. But since we are not at war with China, it will never be brought to open court.
Said differently, had we been at war with China, Clinton would have committed treason by the definition. Conviction would have been impossible, though, without the witnesses and/or confession.
Comment by 89Hoo — January 2, 2011 @ 8:38 pm
Like every thread with too much bat-poop crazy RWnutball involvement, this one devolved into idiocy.
Comment by Kristen — January 2, 2011 @ 10:46 pm
If we had been at war with China, Clinton would have committed treason by definition if he gave them classified U.S. military secrets.
Nobody believes that he did except Suzie.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 2, 2011 @ 11:25 pm
Apparantly she can’t read , or perhaps the verbage in the constitution is more complex the “Me Right-Wing, me good. You Left-Wing, you bad” Foxspeak that she’s accustomed to.
Comment by Kristen — January 3, 2011 @ 8:06 am
I don’t see where the Constitution specifies that providing aid is limited to classified secrets, Dan. During a war, there is an awful lot of information that is NOT classified that an enemy would find useful and/or comforting. I think the founders were intentionally – and wisely – non-specific on that point.
Comment by 89Hoo — January 3, 2011 @ 8:08 am
But to be clear, which information to China are we concerned with? The declassified nuclear secrets? The air defense system? Solid fuel rocket technology?
Comment by 89Hoo — January 3, 2011 @ 8:21 am
55
Apparantly she can’t read , or perhaps the verbage in the constitution is more complex the “Me Right-Wing, me good. You Left-Wing, you bad” Foxspeak that she’s accustomed to.
Apparently Krissy is about 20 posts behind. Everybody in the room has already established selling military secrets can be treason, bimbo. Keep up.
Comment by Suzie — January 3, 2011 @ 9:10 am
“Loose screws Suz starts her New Year being beaten like a Gov’t mule.”
That was expected.
Comment by gdad — January 3, 2011 @ 10:44 am
Since we are not and never have been at war with China, for those who can’t read , the point is moot.
Comment by Kristen — January 3, 2011 @ 11:27 am
Not sure about the whole “never have been at war with China” thing. US forces fought directly against Chinese forces during the Korean War.
Comment by Chuck — January 3, 2011 @ 1:09 pm
# 60
Check out:
The Korean War
The Eight-Nation Alliance in the Boxer Rebellion
The Yangtze River Patrol and Other US Navy Asiatic Fleet Activities in China, 1920-1942, as Described in the Annual Reports of the Navy Department
Comment by DaveH — January 3, 2011 @ 2:31 pm
Suzie’s entire notion that Clinton committed treason is ridiculous, as we have easily proven.
Even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg weren’t convicted of treason. They were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage.
There is no evidence Clinton even committed espionage, except in Suzie’s head.
If there was, don’t you think Clinton’s political enemies in the GOP-controlled House would have impeached him for that, rather than the ridiculous lying-about-a-BJ charge?
Comment by Dan Casey — January 3, 2011 @ 2:47 pm
63 – “…don’t you think Clinton’s political enemies in the GOP-controlled House would have impeached him for that…”
That one’s easy, Dan…of course not. They would not want the focus to turn on THEIR activities…
Comment by 89Hoo — January 3, 2011 @ 4:45 pm
DaveH 62
War requires a declaration of war…
Comment by VVArlock — January 3, 2011 @ 5:03 pm
A far better candidate for a treason charge would be Bush, who couldn’t have done a better chop job on this country while he was in office if the Chinese were holding his first born hostage.
Clinton left my country better off than when he took office. Bush left the country circling the drain.
So who’s the traitor?
And we’ve never been at war with China.Sorry folks. Not even during the Boxer Rebellion.
And Suzie’s still an idiot. Although her ongoing willingness to be completely wrong and abused from all sides is interesting in a freak-show sort of way.
Comment by Kristen — January 3, 2011 @ 5:09 pm
Since we are not and never have been at war with China, for those who can’t read , the point is moot.
Hmm. Trying to figure which country we were at war with when John Brown was executed for treason.
Bimbo.
Comment by Suzie — January 3, 2011 @ 6:12 pm
Sorry, Kristen, Bush can be no more convicted of treason than can Clinton (or Obama), and for the same reasons. I personally think that just about every President since Coolidge has committed impeachable offenses (fighting wars without formal declarations, subverting US interests to those of an international organization, many others)…but they will be no more impeached for any of those sins than they will be convicted of treason.
Comment by 89Hoo — January 3, 2011 @ 6:17 pm
Right Dan. How dare anyone expect the president to have enough respect for the law to actually refrain from lying under oath, regardless of the topic.
Yes Kristen, no formally declared war with China, we just spent three years in the 50′s with our troops trying to kill theirs and vica versa.
Comment by Chuck — January 3, 2011 @ 6:37 pm
How can fighting Chinese troops in Korea in the 50s justify a treason charge in the 1990s, when we weren’t at war with China?
Comment by Dan Casey — January 3, 2011 @ 6:42 pm
“Yes Kristen, no formally declared war with China,”
Yes, Chuck. And in order to bring a charge of treason – to anyone – we have to be in a real life formally declared war. At least you seem to somewhat get it.
“Sorry, Kristen, Bush can be no more convicted of treason than can Clinton (or Obama), and for the same reasons.”
Yes Hoo…I am aware. Explain it to your good buddy Suzie why don’t you. And good luck with that.
Anyway, the standards for impeachment are a lot broader than the requirements for a charge of treason. Also, the punishments levies are completely different.
Suzie, I’d recommend that you read up a little and learn about the circumstances of Brown’s execution, but I’ve realized the futility of suggesting you read and learn anything. So I won’t bother.
Comment by Kristen — January 3, 2011 @ 6:52 pm
As the John Brown case and others demonstrate, this country does not have to be at war to gain a treason conviction. Again, the leftwingers in this blog don’t know their asses from first base.
Comment by Suzie — January 3, 2011 @ 6:54 pm
My good buddy Suzie? Don’t know her from you, but for the record, I have managed to p__s off just about everyone on the RT forum and I doubt ANYONE would consider me a good buddy. I’m fine with that, but I AM curious as to how you think she is my “good buddy”.
Anyway, what would you have me explain? That Clinton cannot be convicted of treason, even if he may have committed it? I already did. Please try to keep up.
Comment by 89Hoo — January 3, 2011 @ 7:01 pm
Suzie – 67
Nice to see you are signing your posts again.
Comment by VVArlock — January 3, 2011 @ 7:06 pm
<em<Suzie, I’d recommend that you read up a little and learn about the circumstances of Brown’s execution, but I’ve realized the futility of suggesting you read and learn anything. So I won’t bother.
Nice dodge, bimbo. You just said our country has to be in a declared war. So…..John Brown?? What war?? LOL. LOL
Comment by Suzie — January 3, 2011 @ 7:06 pm
Hubby said I was too mean to Krissy. I say sorry, but if you put your fat ass out there…..
Comment by Suzie — January 3, 2011 @ 7:08 pm
Troll –
As for John Brown – He “levied war against” the U.S.
He, with help, attacked a Federal Armory, through force of arms, killing US troops and militia members, in his attempt to raid the Harper’s Ferry Armory.
Please review the law as quoted by Dan above. I know reading is not your strong suit, should I have Glenn Beck read it to you?
Comment by VVArlock — January 3, 2011 @ 7:12 pm
“Trying to figure…“, well at least you are making some effort. Still signing your posts even after VVarlock told you it was not necessary. Try harder.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 3, 2011 @ 7:54 pm
If the law gives anyone the right to ask you a question about a consensual sexual action with a consenting, sentient adult, ALL of us should have the right to “lie under oath”. If oral sex was left out of the definition given and oral sex is what you had, you can make the argument that the answer to the question is “no”. Anyone so partisan as to hang their hat on “perjury” over such an intimate issue is beyond credibility. That whole charade was beyond unconscionable but was most certainly an example of how far zealots are willing to go. ALL that whole investigation and impeachment did was harm this nation.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 3, 2011 @ 8:10 pm
What does this have to do with the Cooch? Oh, yeah, nothing.
Comment by Art Hill — January 3, 2011 @ 8:22 pm
“Hubby” must think you are a real prize.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 3, 2011 @ 8:47 pm
Art, dollar to a doughnut, “Kookie” would be a Ken Starr witch hunter in a heartbeat.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 3, 2011 @ 8:48 pm
# 71
“Yes, Chuck. And in order to bring a charge of treason – to anyone – we have to be in a real life formally declared war.”
———
Kristen,
Sorry, but as I understand it, we do not have to have formally declare war on the enemy. We only need to find that they have levied war against us or have given aid to those who levy war against us.
I am not aware that we have ever declared war on Al Qaeda, in the formal “Declaration of War” sense (which I believe you are talking about) — albeit by Osama bin Laden’s fatwa, or declaration of war, was first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996.
As I understand it, it was on those grounds, in October 2006, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, an American fugitive who is accused of making propaganda videos for Al Qaeda, was formally indited for treason.
I think the whole idea that the only wars are the “Declared Wars” is ridiculous and is an affront to many brave, honorable, and loyal men and women.
BTW — none of my post on this thread in anyway suggest that any POTUS (who I also believe to be brave, honorable, and loyal men) has ever committed treason.
Comment by DaveH — January 3, 2011 @ 8:51 pm
So “hubby” wandered home for the evening, did he?
Tell “hubby” if he spent New Years Eve with you, you might be in a better mood.
And, while you’re Googling let us know which federal charges were brought against Brown.
We’ll wait.
Comment by Kristen — January 3, 2011 @ 9:10 pm
Now now Hoo,you probably can’t be convicted of murder, even though you might have committed it. So I guess you and Clinton have something in common!
Comment by Kristen — January 3, 2011 @ 9:14 pm
I didn’t say it did Dan, but Kristen said we are not now nor never had been at war with China. I was merely pointing out that the families of the GIs killed by the Chinese in Korea would probably differ with that statement. For the record, I don’t think, and never said, Clinton should have been charged with treason. Clinton was a philanderer and a liar – i.e. a politician, but I don’t think he was a traitor.
Comment by Chuck — January 3, 2011 @ 9:41 pm
Sandi, I just noticed how well you rationalize lying under oath. Scary how easily our society now casts aside values such as honesty and integrity.
Comment by Chuck — January 3, 2011 @ 9:45 pm
The US did not convict John Brown of anything. The State Of Virginia convicted and executed him.
“Most states have provisions in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two documented prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr for treason against the state of Rhode Island for his part in the Dorr Rebellion, and that of John Brown for treason against the state of Virginia for his part in the raid on Harpers Ferry.”
Source Wikipedia
“Brown was charged with treason, multiple first-degree murders, and inciting an insurrection among Virginia slaves.”
Comment by Cold n P — January 3, 2011 @ 11:04 pm
As for John Brown – He “levied war against” the U.S.
Oh, OK, Warlock. So the United States doesn’t have to be engaged in a declared war for treason to occur. That means selling military secrets in peacetime can be treason. You just contradicted your liberal buddies and made my case. Nice work, moron.
Comment by Suzie — January 3, 2011 @ 11:05 pm
Sandi,
Well, except the bastard lied and got others to lie for him. But other than that….
Comment by Suzie — January 3, 2011 @ 11:07 pm
It’s kind of cute that Suzie runs her posts past Hubby, for his approval.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 4, 2011 @ 12:12 am
Sorry Kristen, messed up your set-up. Dan musta been watching the Hokies get blown up.
Comment by Cold n P — January 4, 2011 @ 12:17 am
Well, then again.
Comment by Cold n P — January 4, 2011 @ 12:26 am
Let’s change the subject.
Comment by Art Hill — January 4, 2011 @ 12:35 am
You’re a real sweetheart, Kristen.
Comment by 89Hoo — January 4, 2011 @ 7:35 am
88 – that’s a good point, and a reference to a time when the states were autonomous and sovereign.
Comment by 89Hoo — January 4, 2011 @ 7:37 am
It’s so funny when lefttwingers who have screeched and screamed that you don’t know what you’re talking about on a topic, then you shoot their whole argument down with one post or one challenge–and they all shut up and/or want to change the subject.
It’s one of the things that keeps me in here.
Comment by Suzie — January 4, 2011 @ 8:25 am
To support Cold in P see the quote below. John Brown was tried and executed on charges brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia. He was not tried under federal statutes.
“John Brown was a fervent abolitionist who was accused of massacring pro-slavery settlers in Kansas in 1856 and who, in 1859, led an unsuccessful raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginia (in what is now West Virginia), in an attempt to start a slave insurrection. On October 16, 1859, Brown and his men occupied the federal arsenal in the northern Shenandoah Valley and were quickly surrounded by the combined forces of local militias and a detachment of United States marines led by Robert E. Lee and J. E. B. Stuart. After a thirty-six-hour shoot-out, Brown and his surviving men surrendered. At the insistence of Virginia governor Henry Wise, Brown was tried in state, not federal, court. At the end of a gripping trial held in Charles Town, he was found guilty of conspiracy, of inciting servile insurrection, and of treason against the state. He was hanged on December 2, 1859. Brown’s raid (and the fact that five of his “soldiers” were African Americans) touched off a frenzy among Southern slave-owners and, in the estimation of many historians, set the nation on an irreversible course toward the American Civil War (1861–1865).” Source is Encyclopedia Virginia.
Comment by Ron — January 4, 2011 @ 10:11 am
Correct…Brown was not brought up on federal charges of treason, although Suzie’s not bright enough to have grasped that, or (gasp) lacks the integrity to admit it. Power fail.
89Hoo, the ongoing fixation with Clinton wears very thin. He won, the right lost, and it’s time they recognized it.
Comment by Kristen — January 4, 2011 @ 10:25 am
99 – Kristen, I agree, re Clinton; ancient history. I feel the same way about the Bushes. Ancient history. I didn’t like any of them, and did not vote for any of them.
And with regards to treason, I don’t think either of them can be convicted of it, for the reasons described above. Issuing a defense of one is not an endorsement of the other.
Comment by 89Hoo — January 4, 2011 @ 10:51 am
Correct…Brown was not brought up on federal charges of treason, although Suzie’s not bright enough to have grasped that, or (gasp) lacks the integrity to admit it.
Gosh, doesn’t that make your claim even weaker, Krissy? You’re the one who said the United States had to be involved in a war to get a treason conviction. Now you’re saying the Brown case didn’t even involve the United States.
Best to stop digging when you’re already buried, bimbo.
Comment by Suzie — January 4, 2011 @ 11:44 am
Well Chuck it is kinda like people who demand that their opinions are valid, no matter how wrong they are, no matter how thoroughly wrong they are proven to be. Lying under oath in a court or lying on a blog under anonymity, are apparently totally eye of the beholder issues. If the question is answered as you believe it to be, have you lied? Look around you…apparently people think it is not.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 4, 2011 @ 12:39 pm
That’s a nice hypothetical for a philosophy class Sandi, but the truth is not an opinino and it most definitely is not “in the eye of the beholder.” Clinton did not believe what he was saying. He flatly denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky then later admitted it. He perjured himself while under oath repeatedly. If he truly had a conscientious objection to the personal nature of the question, he should have refused to answer on those grounds and accepted those consequences, whatever they might have been. Instead he looked Congress, and America in the eye and said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, a statement that was a willful, deliberate bold-faced lie. That said, I maintain that Clinton was a liar and an adulterer, but not a traitor. Oh and I forgot:
“If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people, he should resign.” – William Jefferson Clinton 1974
Apparently he was a hypocrite as well.
Comment by Chuck — January 4, 2011 @ 1:30 pm
Well Chuck, if we’re gonna start talking about the kettle (Clinton) maybe we should introduce him to the pot:
March 4, 1987, the Republican Savior, Ronald Reagan
“The reason I haven’t spoken to you before now is this: You deserve the truth. And as frustrating as the waiting has been, I felt it was improper to come to you with sketchy reports, or possibly even erroneous statements, which would then have to be corrected, creating even more doubt and confusion. There’s been enough of that.”
He continued later…
“A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind.”
So… He lied? Or wait… His “heart and intentions” are more valuable than facts… (If I felt like betting anything, I’d say Suzie would say Reagan’s heart/intentions are better than facts any day of the week.)
I’m surprised Iran-Contra didn’t come up earlier in this discussion.
Comment by Aaron — January 5, 2011 @ 3:44 am
Aaron,
There are 3 possibilities here. 1) Reagan lied in the earlier statement; or 2) Reagan made an erroneous statement the first around (i.e. he didn’t know what the government he led was doing); or 3) Reagan lied in the latter statement.
I think we can discount the third and focus on the first two. Of those, #2 is more likely, and if it’s #2 then it’s different than what Clinton (or Nixon) did. They both knowingly told untruths in an attempt to deceive. I don’t think Reagan did that.
Fyi, in the run-up to Iraq, Bush & Cheney knowingly told selective “truths” in an attempt to deceive. Though the goal is the same, that’s more dishonest than straight up lying in my book.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 5, 2011 @ 9:02 am
Dan,
Very true, but to quote the sign on Harry Truman’s desk, “The buck stops here.”
When something that high level happens, whether it be micromanaging an administration to influence support for a war (Bush/Cheney) or being completely oblivious to the trade of arms to a hostile nation for hostages, or at least oblivious to the hostage side of things (Reagan), even though their ways were deceitful, I still have a little respect for the administration who knew exactly what they were doing.
The wording in the second excerpt from Reagan’s March 4th speech just oozes of “I didn’t know it, I don’t believe it, but it happened” essentially throwing his entire administration out there to take the blame by saying he doesn’t believe it.
To throw a private sector twist on it–The only thing I hate more than a CEO who lies to consumers to make him and his pals more money is a CEO who doesn’t know that his pals are lying to make all of them more money.
The buck stops at the top, there is no excuse for the President of the United States not to know (whether good or bad) what this nation is doing.
Comment by Aaron — January 5, 2011 @ 12:23 pm