I just heard the news-senile Janet Reno has decided NOT to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Gore’s criminal behavior (at the Buddhist temple in San Francisco).
Quite apart from the obvious partisan nature of her action(of course she is not going to embarrass Clinton’s crown prince), this raises serious questions about her ability to perceive reality!
The facts: Gore attended a fund-raising event at a religious institution. He did solicit and did accept, substantial sums of money. This is in clear violation of federal law.
Now, the Atty. General (the chief law enforcement official)has stated that she sees no need to investigate this action!
Well, we might as well post signs on everbody in washington-“for sale”!
What proof do you have for these “facts”? It is not in “clear violation” of federal law to have a fund-raiser at a religious institution as far as I know.
[sarcasm]
No, the evidence is not so clear. Al Gore says he was in the bathroom when the important stuff (like the fact that it was a fundraiser) was discussed.
Gee, if he becomes president, someone had better make sure he doesn’t have too much iced tea before his national security briefings.
[/sarcasm]
No surprise. This just shows what a conflict of interest the attorney general has in cases like this, deciding whether to investigate her boss’s #2 man.
She didn’t think giving/selling military secrets to the Communist Chinese was worth looking into, either.
The special Prosecutor that Reno was considering appointing (but did not) did not deal with Gore’s behavior at the Temple- it was for charges of perjury. Gore claims that he did not know it was a fundraiser. To get a perjury charge to stick, there would have to be some proof that he knew that it was a fundraiser. No evidence of this was presented. Hence no special prosecutor.
I’m just mildly annoyed that people completely ignore the mere possibility that Gore may have committed such heinous wrongdoings. You love the guy so much that he can do no wrong, huh? Sounds rational to me.
While I am not familiar with the law, the fact is that Gore has changed his story several times (I was not there, I was in the bathroom, I did not think it was a fundraiser, etc) which to me would seem to show he would rather hide the truth.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Please elucidate.
Meanwhile, in a case such as this, when the accusations are so CLEARLY a sign of desperation on the part of the Republicans who have so little faith in their own candidate that they feel they must hamstring his opponent in order to level the playing field, it behooves the Attorney General to make damn sure the charges are valid before she agrees to be manipulated into doing the Republicans’ dirty work for them. She’s entirely right in the situation to give any benefit of the doubt–any whisper of a doubt–to the accused party. The Republicans don’t seem to understand that gnashing teeth and foam-flecked lips don’t go very far in projecting an air of credibility.
Signed,
lissener:
The Master Baiter
Oh please!! As if Janet Reno is going to give the Republicans any ammunition at this stage fo the game. And rightly so. Only to an allegation of felony against Gore does she have to act at this part fo the election season.
SPOOFE Bo Diddly, what are you calling heinous wrong-doings? I don’t think that engaging in hyperbole about the issue really gives any credibility to your argument.
(FTR - I am not a democrat and will not be voting for Al Gore)
AFAIK, the alleged wrongdoings are these:
- Denying knowledge that the Buddhist Temple event was a fund-raiser (any illegalities committed during the fund-raising would be a crime on the Temple’s part, not Al Gore’s part, unless someone has any evidence that Al Gore knew about the illegalities, and AFAIK there is no proof of that)
- Making phone calls from his official residence
I don’t see how either of these could be called “heinous”.
Right. Or maybe he can be like our greatest Republican president and “forget” everything that might have happened under his watch.
Come on, Chaim. It works both ways…
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, two weeks, 21 hours, 58 minutes and 59 seconds.
5476 cigarettes not smoked, saving $684.58.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 20 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
P.S. in my post above I meant to say “making fund-raising phone calls from his official residence”
So you genuinely doubted this until now?
Satan said:
Since Reagan turned out to have Alzheimer’s, he may actually not have remembered some of the things he claimed not to remember. You suppose Gore’s/Clinton’s/et al’sconvenient memory failures result from Alzheimers?
It does indeed work both ways.
Anything is possible, but he claimed to “forget” these things long before he was diagnosed with anything.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, one day, 12 hours, 30 minutes and 44 seconds.
5500 cigarettes not smoked, saving $687.60.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 2 hours, 20 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]
Satan:
You’re right about Reagan, but I just can’t get out of my head that “I was in the bathroom at the time” sounds like an excuse that comes from an elementary-school student (“Albert, what’s the atomic weight of Neon?” “Ummm…I was in the bathroom, Ma’am.”). Makes me snicker to hear it come from our super-serious vice president.
Also, it kind of stretches the imagination to think that if something important came up while the president was out of the room briefly, in a meeting he was otherwise present for, that he wouldn’t have asked to be told what he missed or something. Reagan, at least, claims to have not been in on the Iran-Contra thing altogether, something Gore cannot possibly claim.
Chaim Mattis Keller
It certainly seems plausible to me that if, in this hypothetical situation, a bunch of LAWLESS HOODLUMS were going to commit the HEINOUS CRIME :rolleyes: of discussing the fundraising games made necessary by an archaic system the Republicans fight just as desperately to maintain, they would wait until their goody-goody, incredibly lifelike leader were out of the room to do so.
In that scenario, I find it perfectly plausible that Gore was in the bathroom; I doubt if anything remotely (and hypothetically) shady would be discussed in his presence. You think he learned nothing from Reagan’s slithey success at all?
As far as offering Reagan the Alzheimer’s shield to hide behind, shame on you. And besides, you can’t have it both ways: either he was incompetent and useless as a president and had his “advisors’” arms higher up his ass than a greased up leatherboy in a sling, or he was lying. Take your pick.
Not to take sides, this is not actually a contradicition. Those who claim that Reagan was a great president claim this based on his leadership in setting the general policies to be followed, not for the specific details that he was involved in.
IzzyR, come on–you’re suggesting that being a good coalitionist is exactly the same thing as having Alzheimer’s?
I said, and I say again (lather, rinse, repeat):
You can’t have it both ways.
lissener,
I don’t understand you. A leader can do a good job employing people who share his philosophy of governing, and making larger decisions about broader issues, even if he leaves details to subordinates. Therefore, it is conceivable that Reagan was neither incompetent nor lying.
You can say it a third and fourth time, but it won’t magically become true.