I love to watch them destroy themselves. From BELIEFNET.COM

God's Politics



An interesting and important development in the 2008 race for the White House: conservative evangelical hatchets are out in force, trying to cut down a prominent 2008 presidential hopeful. Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? John Edwards? Wrong on all three counts.

Having already publicly attacked Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani in a remarkably candid editorial last month, Focus on the Family and Family Research Council have now unleashed their political machine against none other than Mitt Romney, working in tandem with some of Fred Thompson’s online organizers. It’s fair to interpret this as an early signal about where these groups are likely throw their political weight in the lead-up to Super Tuesday.

Read The Nation. article:

With onetime Republican presidential frontrunner Senator John McCain in meltdown, Mitt Romney suddenly finds himself under fire from some of the Christian right's most influential activists. Romney's evangelical critics claim the former Massachusetts governor and devout Mormon was complicit in the Marriott hotel chain's sale of pay-per-view porn on its in-room television sets when he served on the corporation's board of directors from 1992 to 2001. Two Christian-right operatives involved in orchestrating the charges have enlisted as Internet organizers for former Senator Fred Thompson, who is preparing to enter the race formally. The tactics of these religious-right players, targeted below the radar against Romney, are calculated to alter decisively the outcome of the Republican primary contest.

The assault was launched on July 5 with an opening shot in the form of a breathless press release issued through the mega-ministry Focus on the Family. In it, veteran antiporn crusader Phil Burress called Romney's failure to take action against pay-per-view hotel porn during his tenure on Marriott's board "extremely disturbing." That same day, a Focus on the Family spokesman took to the radio airwaves to ask whether Romney would "turn a blind eye" to pornography if elected president. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which functions as Focus's Washington lobbying arm, immediately joined the pile-on. He briefed the Associated Press on the record, explaining that Romney must "take some responsibility" for his supposed connection to Marriott's porn profiteering. The AP report on the accusation against Romney was subsequently reprinted in the pages of major outlets from The Boston Globe to The Washington Post. It only took a full six years after Romney resigned from Marriott's board for the Christian right's leading lights to profess their outrage—and only hours for the press to echo it.

Chris LaTondresse is the special assistant to the CEO at Sojourners/Call to Renewal.

The evangelicals are freaking. "W" was their boy and he's about as Lame Duck as anyone in history. All their conservative boys have baggage. If Fred Thompson doesn't run, they have no one to wear their hat on and their heads will explode. Good times!

Since when are the spouses fair game. Bill clinton was married to frigid lesbo and no one cared. I'm not a fan of fred, but if he's married to a 25 year old hottie he's my hero in that regard.

Spouses have been fair game since the day Bubba was sworn in. They may not have cared that she was a dyke, or that Chelsea was conceived via in vitro insemination, but starting that January 21, they went after her for the most outrageous shit: The "murder" of Vince Foster; the non-existent crimes at the Rose Law firm; Whitewater, which wasted how many millions of taxpayer dollars in a fruitless investigation?

The Fascists made the spouses fair game, and it's too fucking bad if they don't want to play by their own rules.

I still would only vote for Hillary if it was a choice between her and Rudy. But fair is fair.

Wayback Perspective Machine:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/20/national/main234848.shtml

(CBS) Six years and more than $50 million in taxpayer money later, an independent counsel has concluded there is "insufficient evidence" to charge President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton with any criminal wrongdoing in the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas.

Good thing the current President/Vice President believes in the concept of a healthy democratic transparency:

Washington Post:

"Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A01

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

Yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. The opinion centered on a contempt citation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It concluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress.

The Bush administration has not previously signaled it would forbid a U.S. attorney from pursuing a contempt case in relation to the prosecutor firings. But officials at Justice and elsewhere say it has long held that Congress cannot force such action.

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

Jim, I've read suicide notes before. That aint no suicide note. Someone so wacked out their mind that they are going to eat a bullet would not be dwelling on the job or the travel office. Not a single mention of his family? Not a "sorry mom" "tell skooter I love him". He committed suicide cause he wasn't cut for public life? This guy was a trial lawyer for god sakes. If it was just the job a simple resignation would have sufficed.

Some have held that it was actually a resignation letter: It was found in the office, not on the body. Regardless, you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

The angle of the wound
The gun in his hand
The residue on said hand
The clinical depression
The Medication
The Autopsy
The Investigation by TWO Independent Counsels

Jesus Moxie are you so paranoid that you can't see it? Tell me, which makes more sense: That Vince Foster committed suicide, or that Ken Starr lied and covered up evidence to protect the Clintons?

Come on, man. It speaks for itself.

C'mon Jim, whoever did were pros. People like Vince Foster just don't kill themselves over a job instead of just resigning. And they certainly don't write a resignation letter before a goodbye to their family.

Forrestal was a LOT more high profile than Foster at the time of his swannie at Bethesda. Hoffman was the last leader of the radical left and was just enjoying a resurgence after his years on the lam. Both killed themselves. We know Hoffman suffered mental illness and it's universally suspected that Forrestal did too, given his behavior.

Foster suffered clinical depression. He left it untreated throughout his life, for fear of the stigma, until his wife finally prevailed upon him to see a doctor. it was too late.

Mental illness strikes people in all walks of life. I had a cousin who committed suicide about twenty years ago. Rich, educated, good looking, proper breeding, elite lineage. None of that mattered. When it hits somebody with a high profile, high stress job like Secretary of Defens, or Deputy White House Counsel, it can be fatal.

Again, which is more likely: That Vince Foster, with uncontrolled Depression, blew his brains out in the park, or that the President aof the United States and the First Lady arrainged for hit men to put a gun in Fosters mouth at just the right angle, pull the trigger (all without doping the man) fire another shot from his cold dead hand in order to put get the residue on there, clean the gun, refire once to make it appear as if Foster took kis own life, stick the body in a trunk, drive across the river and dump it in the park (carefully arrainged so as to make it look like a suicide.) And then either pay off the hitmen with money they didn't have or have them killed in turn so as to ensure silence. Then convince their mortal enemy, Ken Starr, to cover the whole thing up and then lie about it.

For a guy who claims that he'll support a Centerist Democrat if Rudy doesn't get the nomination, you're sounding more and more like a John Birch Right Wing Scaife Flunky.

I don't assert for a minute that Bubba and the Dyke are innocent as babes. Every politician, of both parties has done something dirty in order to get where they are, and the higher they get, the more they've done. But what you're allegeing is fantasy, concocted by rich, paranoid fascists with the time and the money to spread such an idea and a list of willing ears to listen. Thats how stories like this gain currency. And that's exactly what happened here.

Ken Starr cover for the Clintons? What's next? Billy Graham becomes an Athiest?

Quote:

---

Associate White House Counsel Cheryl D. Mills told investigators
someone broke into her car Tuesday shortly after 11 p.m. while it was
parked in the 2200 block of H Street NW, smashing a passenger-side
window and taking a blue gym bag containing her handwritten notes and
correspondence between the White House and Congress.
. . . . Ms. Mills told police she was in the area to conduct personal
business.
. . . . According to law-enforcement officials, the papers -- said to be
copies of original notes already turned over to the various Whitewater
and Waco committees --included information on the White House's handling
of Mr. Foster's office papers on the night his body was found in a rural
Virginia park, and documents on raids by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms and the FBI on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas,
in 1993.

---

Quote:

---

In a handwritten note, the former law partner of Mrs. Clinton's
said declaring a loss on the couple's 1992 tax returns for the sale of
their share of the Whitewater venture to partner James B. McDougal could
result in a "can of worms you shouldn't open

---

By the way, Foster had scheduled a meeting with Bill Clinton for the following morning at which time he was going to resign.

The first witness to find the body did not recall seeing a gun. Fosters memory on his pager had been erased. Before the park police got to Fosters office it had been cleared and his belongings boxed up and moved.

Quote:

---

Doug Buford, friend and attorney, stated, "...something was badly askew." Foster's brother-in-law, a former congressman, also did not accept that depression was what had been behind the "suicide": "That's a bunch of crap." And Webster Hubbell, former Clinton deputy attorney general, phoned a mutual friend to say, "Don't believe a word you hear. It was not suicide. It couldn't have been."

---

Quote:

---

Vincent J. Scalise, a former NYC detective, Fred Santucci, a former forensic photographer for NYC, and Richard Saferstein, former head of the New Jersey State Crime Lab formed a team and did an investigation of the VWF case for the Western Journalism Center of Fair Oaks, Calif. They arrived at several conclusions:

(1) Homicide cannot and should not be ruled out.

(2) The position of the arms and legs of the corpse were drastically inconsistent with suicide.

(3) Neither of VWF's hand was on the handgrip when it was fired. This is also inconsistent with suicide. The investigators noted that in their 50 years of combined experience they had "never seen a weapon or gun positioned in a suicide's hand in such an orderly fashion."

(4) VWF's body was probably in contact with one or more carpets prior to his death. The team was amazed that the carpet in the trunk of VF's care had not been studied to see whether he had been carried to the park in the trunk of his own car.

(5) The force of the gun's discharge probably knocked VF's glasses flying; however, it is "inconceivable" that they could have traveled 13 feet through foliage to the site where they were found; ergo, the scene probably was tampered with.

(6) The lack of blood and brain tissue at the site suggests VF was carried to the scene. The peculiar tracking pattern of the blood on his right cheek also suggests that he was moved.

---

Now, here's a photo leaked by the white house. Um, where's the blodd on the hand? There is none. No blood on his nice white shirt on the trigger hand. Sorry Jim, but you can't have a gunshot at point blank range and not get any blood on your self.

I notice you have no comment about the lack of blood on his gun hand or anywhere else near by. Whats more likely, he shot himself and cleaned pff the blood before departing or someone gave him a head tap and placed the gun in his hand.

The sources are all from press conferences and news papers. i'll post them if you insist. But you find an explanation for the lack of blood.

I will not read this thread, but I will say this:

Mitt Romney has zip, zero, no chance whatsoever, and the reason is simple: his hair. It will sink his campaign just like Howard Dean's spastic moment.

Please change your avatar to your own tits.

I hear they are to die for.