Cheney Faces Criminal IndictmentsFollow

Cheney Faces Criminal Indictments; Other Illegal Actions Raise Warning Flags at White House...

and what is Bush's response to this?

“*** ‘em all,” Bush said.

I'm sure he knows nothing about it.

Yes, I know it's a liberal site, so? The facts of the story wont change regardless how it could be slanted.

Ill bring the beer Trick, this could be a good show.

heh, I like how it's being described as a "frank exchange of views". Wonder what they'd call it if Cheney was to deck someone.

Where is gbaji? If he's taking this long to frame his reply, I'll prolly pass out before I finish reading it.

The real question is, do we get to call him Di[/i]ck "F'in" Cheney from now on? Because we all know from Kerry's [i]Rolling Stone interview that usinf the f-word means you couldn't possibly serve the nation.

A little more info for you french loving commy bastards

STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

Varus

ah the you ever so witty and well thought out you're a sock puppet response.

Varus

Well, that shut him up

Varusgay is just a c*cksucker anyway.

Slurp it down, baby. Drink it all up.

Grady

Jophy wrote


That being said i'd like to say don't believe anything i say unless it's something you already know to be true or research of your own.

By the way I like the name calling. It seems to come natural to you radicals but then again democrats are by far less educated than the alternative parties so I would imagine that would include intelligently expressing any kind of coherent arguement.

Varus

What does Clinton have to do with this?

From how butt-hurt Varus is, I'd say Clinton "dated" his Mom.

Hah. I'm on the west coast, and I get up late on Mondays.

Um... What exactly do you want me to say about this? Let's review:

A web site for the poster child of the Democratic Party's most extreme political views posts a "news story" (I'll use the word news very liberally here). In this story is the followoing:

- Cheney "faces indictment" for some illegal activities, "according to an analysis of the white house counsels office".

Um... Met me translate. "We talked to a staffer who delivered donuts to the counsel's office, and he overheard that they had heard that someone, somewhere might just raise legal charges against the VP. Maybe...".

"Facing indictment" is irrelevent and meaningless. An indictment is when some legal body has formally accused you of a crime. And indictment does not mean you are guilty to begin with. Until he's actually indicted, the term "facing indictment" just means that some people out there somewhere think he should be charged with a crime, but haven't actually charged him with anything. Again. Meaningless.

- Those who have read the analysis say it presents a “devastating” case against the Vice President and concludes Cheney has violated both the “spirit and intent” of federal laws on conflict of interest.

The staffer who delivered the donuts used the word "devastating", and the phrase "spirit and intent", so we'll use them where we can...

- The French are considering charges of Bribery. Wow. Imagine that. The bastions of truth and jutice, and certainly the country least likely to hold a grudge against us over Iraq (the French governent had huge business deals with the former governent in Iraq), is investigating into charges of briberty? Still my heart. Let me know when or if they actually raise charges. Ok?

- Even worse, Cheney faces indictment by a French court on charges of bribery, money laundering and misuse of corporate assets because of fraud associated with the construction of a $6 billion petrochemical plant built by Halliburton in Nigeria in partnership with Technip, one of France’s largest petrochemical engineering companies.


Wow. What could be "even worse" then being investigated by the French? Oh yeah! Being investigated by the Frtnch, um... again. I guess. Aren't those the same chages they mentioned 3 paragraphs ago? Hmmm... Guess they ran out of story? This reads like someone in High School wrote it.

Oh. But while we're at it, we'll include information that certainly clarifies that no on in France is holding any kind of grudge, and there's no political or monetary motivation for the investigatoin at all. Guess someone didn't read the fine print of a contract or something...


- London Lawyer Jeffrey Tesler, a consultant to Halliburton, admitted under oath in May that he made payments from the fund to Albert “Jack” Stanley, president of Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root and a longtime friend and associate of Cheney. The payments, Tesler said, were personally approved by Cheney, who headed Halliburton at the time.


Ok. Let me explain something for those of you reading along. When you take money from your own pocket (or company money), and give it to a government official in return for some under the table benefits, that's a "bribe". When you take the same money and give it to someone working for *another* company, it's a "pay off". When you spend money out of a fund and give it to people who work for you company (or a direct subsidiary in this case), um... we call that a "bonus". That's not to say that something illegal didn't occur. It's just that right now, the only evidence I'm being presented with is that a copany paid some money out of a fund to a couple of its own employees. Um... Where's the illegality in that? Tell me what the guy(s) did for the money. That's where any illegality will have to be.


And the rest of the article is pretty much full of hearsay and speculation as well. You know, I'm all for foward looking papers. But this one's abit too forwad looking. Let's wait until someone actually gets charged with something, shall we?

Or at least until some news source other then this prints a story about it so maybe I have more to work off of then some 5th rate writer;s stumbling attemtps to make the other party's leadership look as bad as possible, while presending as little fact as possible.

It's a good read for a laugh. Let me know when a real news source carries the story.

Truer words never spoken.