You still got the wrong Mr. Dean, Darwin

Identifying the CORRECT Mr. Dean since you don't know any better........no child left behind?

• Them's strong words Mr Dean! - Mrs. Bridger
  • Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse - IMHO
    • that makes sense......and you talk out of the other end? - Mrs. Bridger
    • Howard Dean is also an MD - Mrs. Bridger
      • Doctors - IMHO
        • Pssssst...I'm pretty sure that Dr. Hannibal Lector... - Marmann
          • O-M-G - You are correct - call me the fool - IMHO
            • It's a tribute, I think, to... - Marmann
              • Thanks Marmann - IMHO
                • Thank you, IMHO. (Please see message.) - Marmann
        • You still got the wrong Mr. Dean, Darwin - Mrs. Bridger
    • Ummm...wrong Mr. Dean, Einstein - Mrs. Bridger
    • meant "through" the mouth of a horse - IMHO

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Howard Dean was the Vermont Governor who ran in the 2004 election. JOHN Dean was Richard Nixon's Aide - get it?

John Wesley Dean III (born October 14, 1938) was White House Counsel to U.S. President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. As White House Counsel, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover up, even referred to as "master manipulator of the cover up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

    Friday 26 August 2005

Had he been a Democrat, he'd probably be hiring a criminal attorney.

    On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion Pat Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.

    More specifically, Robertson said, You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.

    We have the ability to take him out, Robertson continued, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

    Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.

    By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down: I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.

    No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.

    From the moment I heard Robertson's remark, on the radio, I thought of the federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats. Do they apply?

    For me, the answer is yes. Indeed, had these comments been made by a Dan Rather, a Bill Moyers, or Jesse Jackson, it is not difficult to imagine some conservative prosecutor taking a passing look at these laws - as, say, Pat Robertson might read them - and saying, Let's prosecute.

    The Broad Federal Threat Attempt Prohibition Vis-à-Vis Foreign Leaders

    Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: Whoever willfully - (1) ... threatens ... a foreign official ..., [or] (2) attempts to... threaten ... a foreign official ... shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

    The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson attempted to threaten President Chavez.

    Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?

    It would likely be the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would answer that question; the Fourth Circuit includes Virginia where Robertson made the statement. And typically, the Fourth Circuit, in interpreting statutes does not look to the intent of Congress; it focuses on statutory language instead.

    And in a case involving Robertson, to focus on language would only be poetic justice:

Robertson, is the strictest of strict constructionists, a man who believes judges (and prosecutors) should enforce the law exactly as written. He said as much in his 2004 book, Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Is Usurping The Power of Congress and the People.

    Still, since the applicability of this misdemeanor statute is debatable, I will focus on the felony statute instead.

    The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison for Threats to Kidnap or Injure

    It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphases added.)

    The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.

    But did Robertson's communication contain a threat to kidnap or injure Chavez?

    First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to take him out, especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.

    Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez. Under the federal statute, a threat to kidnap is expressly covered.

    As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.

    Does Robertson's Threat Count as a True Threat? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does

    If Robertson himself were a judge (or prosecutor) reading this statue - based on my reading of his book about how judges and justice should interpret the law - he would be in a heap of trouble. But how would the statute likely be read in the Fourth Circuit, where a prosecution of Robertson would occur?

    Under that Circuit's precedent, the question would be whether Robertson's threat was a true threat. Of course, on third reflection, Robertson said it was not. But others have been prosecuted notwithstanding retractions, and later reflections on intemperate threats.

    Here is how the Fourth Circuit - as it explained in the Draby case - views threats under this statute: Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient [meaning, the person to whom the threat was directed] familiar with the context of the communication.

    This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not mean to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not feel threatened, that is not the end of the story.

    In one Fourth Circuit case, the defendant asked if [the person threatened] knew who Jeffrey Dahlmer [sic] was. Then the defendant added that, he didn't eat his victims, like Jeffrey Dahlmer; [sic] that he just killed them by blowing them up. This defendant's conviction for this threat was upheld.

    In another Fourth Circuit ruling, the defendant, an unhappy taxpayer, was convicted for saying, to an IRS Agent, that in all honesty, I can smile at you and blow your brains out; that once I come through there, anybody that tries to stop me, I'm going to treat them just like they were a cockroach; and, that unless I can throw somebody through a damn window, I'm just not going to feel good.

    Viewed in the context, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it was anything but clear that any of these threats were anything more than angry tough talk. The same could be said of Robertson's threats. Yet in both these cases, the Fourth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction, deeming the true threat evidence sufficient to do so.

    For me, this make Robertson's threats a very close question. President Chavez publicly brushed Robertson's threats off, for obvious diplomatic reasons, yet I suspect a little inquiry would uncover that the Venezuelan President privately he has taken extra precautions, and his security people have beefed up his protection. Robertson has Christian soldiers everywhere. Who knows what some misguided missionary might do?

    If you have not seen the Robertson threat, view it yourself and decide. Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his apology is anything but a retraction.

    Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?

 http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0714-25.htm

John Dean on MSNBC: Dik Cheney may be guilty of "murder"

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s bombshell earlier this week that Vice President Dik Cheney controlled an “executive assassination ring” continues to reverberate throughout Washington, with Nixon aide John Dean going so far as to accuse the former VP of murder if the charges are true.

Not with the priests who do the molesting.

Not with the Senator who absolves the priests of blame and instead blames the Liberals.

No.  Instead something is definitely wrong with ME for my outrage that a Republican Senator can make such an outlandish, IRRESPONSIBLE statement, instead of trying to SAVE these children and condemning what the priests are doing.  Unfortunately, this is typical of the Republican party these days.  Typical of the "We are perfect and make no mistakes" mentality that's prevalent in this country.  They couldn't be honest if their lives depended on it.

Not everyone is a liar.  Only the ones who have done it on this board before and don't deserve to be trusted or believed again.

It's quite simple. If you want to be believed, stop lying.

What posts are you talking about?  Either I wasn't here then or you're wrong.  I've read through most of the posts but don't remember seeing that.  Prove it.

I corrected myself.  I admitted to my mistakes.  I always admit to my mistakes, and believe me, I make a lot of them.  I'm even harsher on me than the neocons are.

If the neocons could just admit to theirs, the dialogue might be more productive.

We both could be wrong.  I find debating what if's a waste of time. 

The simple answer to any what if question is:

If you're right then I'm wrong.  However, I find dealing in knowns a better way to logistically deal with any scenario.  You can what if yourself all day long and never get anywhere.

Despite the UN ruling that Israel completed its withdrawal from southern Lebanon (UN, June 18, 2000), Hizballah and the Lebanese government insist that Israel still holds Lebanese territory in eastern Mount Dov, a 100-square-mile, largely uninhabited patch called Shebaa Farms. This claim provides Hizballah with a pretext to continue its activities against Israel. Thus, after kidnapping three Israeli soldiers in that area, it announced that they were captured on Lebanese soil.  Israel, which has built a series of observation posts on strategic hilltops in the area, maintains that the land was captured from Syria; nevertheless, the Syrians have supported Hizballah's claim. According to the Washington Post, the controversy benefits each of the Arab parties. For Syria, it means Hizballah can still be used to keep the Israelis off balance; for Lebanon, it provides a way to apply pressure over issues, like the return of Lebanese prisoners still held in Israeli jails. For Hezbollah, it is a reason to keep its militia armed and active, providing a ready new goal for a resistance movement that otherwise had nothing left to resist. In January 2005, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution condemning violence along the Israel-Lebanon border and reasserted that the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions.

I never said this person was sent to SHUT DOWN down the board, as I was accused of saying by the rude, rabid person you're defending.

I said this person was sent to crash the board (as in INVADE the board, as in someone who would CRASH A PARTY). 

Yes, I made the mistake of posting on the other board twice before I read further and realized the nature of these boards.  I haven't repeated that mistake since.

I suppose I can expect 3,869 more posts from you to make us even for my two posts.

After reading some posts by you on your board (such as Prophecy certainly is being fulfilled.  So much of the world has turned their back on Israel.), I can totally understand your blind, unquestioning loyalty to Israel.  You obviously believe the end times are near, and if you don't support Israel, you won't get to spend eternity with people like Ann Coulter.  People like you scare me because I believe you will do anything it takes to self-fulfill that prophecy.  That is yet another reason why religion and politics don't mix; I can't help but wonder if God told Bush to bring the end times about, which he seems to be intent on doing with his bomb first, ask questions later tactics.  After all, God told Bush to go to war with Iraq, and Bush obeyed that order.

Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice, with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment. 

So....even though he was not convicted and not told to step down from office....he was still impeached.  Only one president has been impeached and told to step down and that was President Andrew Johnson...I do believe.  President Nixon chose to resign rather than be impeached.

It is not that the Soup Nazi didn't have any soup, it is just that he was free to deny soup to anyone he felt was not deserving of it.  The same goes for us.  We are not obligated to respond to your demands for documentation if we feel you are not deserving of it.  Therefore, no soup for you!